Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 28th February.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Whisky

Mr. Stodart: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage increase or reduction, between 1960, 1961 and 1962, in the number of gallons of Scotch whisky sold abroad of an age less than that at which it may be sold in this country.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Alan Green): Separate figures for exports of immature whisky are not available, but it is estimated that in 1961, compared with 1960, exports in proof gallons increased by about 50 per cent., while in 1962 compared with 1961 they were about 16 per cent. lower.

Mr. Stodart: Does not this mean that the export of immature whisky now amounts to about 1 million gallons or more per annum? Is my hon. Friend aware of the unfavourable comment about the presence of immature whisky in great potential markets for Scotch whisky, such as France and Western Germany, and will he take steps to place the export of immature whisky on the same basis as it enjoys in the home market by removing from the export field altogether

a commodity which can very easily damage the reputation of a great export earner?

Mr. Green: I assure my hon. Friend that representations to this effect have been made to us and they are now under consideration.

Bishop Auckland

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made since 1st January, 1963, for new industrial projects in the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area; and how many jobs are expected to develop from these schemes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): Nine new industrial buildings and extensions totalling 240,000 sq. ft. are either under construction or awaiting a starting date in this area. According to the estimates of the firms concerned, these schemes should produce 900 additional jobs. In addition, an advance factory is under construction in the Crook area and planning is well advanced on another at Aycliffe.

Mr. Boyden: My Question relates to what has been happening since 1st January, 1963. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that all the journeys of Ministers to the North-East have led to only 900 jobs during the past six months or so? What is in the pipeline for the immediate future?

Mr. Price: With respect, the Question relates to the Bishop Auckland area, and I gave the hon. Gentleman the answer to it.

North-East

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what approaches his Department has made to growth industries with a view to their expanding in the North-East, and with what results.

Mr. D. Price: The Board of Trade is continually in discussion with firms with growth prospects, representing a wide range of industry. Every effort is made to interest these firms in the opportunities existing in development districts, including the North-East, and in the facilities available under the Local Employment Act.


Since 1st April, 1960, 165 firms from outside the region have visited the North-East to view sites or premises.

Mr. Boyden: Do the activities of the Board of Trade include encouraging existing firms to expand by providing them with loans and credits? A good many of the firms already on the site could be expanded if there were this sort of help.

Mr. Price: The Local Employment Act covers local expansion, and my right hon. Friend and our officers in the Board of Trade are constantly bringing this to the attention of firms in development districts.

Mr. P. Williams: Has my hon. Friend noted the very sensible recommendation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) in a recent debate, that if the Government were to launch a space communications programme, the growth industry connected with it would be very suitable in the North-East?

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend ought to put a separate Question down about space communications. As he knows, a very large number of firms are involved, and one cannot talk in terms of a single industry benefiting from a space programme.

Mr. Jay: How does the Parliamentary Secretary explain that while the Government have been protesting about all the things they intend to do to increase employment they have reduced their Estimate for expenditure on the promotion of local employment from £40 million in the past year to £24 million in the forthcoming year?

Mr. Price: The right hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that as well as I do. In the past year there has not been the expansion of industry that there was in the previous year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is no controversy about this across the Floor; it is just a fact relating to the working of the Local Employment Act. The financial help under the Act is given for industrial expansions. If industry has not been expanding at the same rate as in the previous year, one cannot spend as much.

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must get on or we shall get into trouble.

Factory, Airdrie (Closure)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the closure of Salts (Saltaire) Airdrie and the loss of 150 jobs; and what steps he proposes to take to replace these jobs.

Mr. D. Price: My right hon. Friend was sorry to learn of the closure of this factory and the consequent loss of jobs. He will continue to use his powers under the Local Employment Act to encourage the introduction of new industry to the north Lanarkshire area and the expansion of industry already established there.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nearly 10 per cent. of the insured population in this district is unemployed and that this closure came as a bad blow to the neighbourhood? Does he not think it is about time the Minister programmed the number of jobs per month so that we may know before the end of the year how many jobs will come to the locality?

Mr. Price: It is difficult to programme precisely month by month because we in the Department do not control the manning-up of factories which are being built in the north Lanarkshire area. The hon. Member may care to know that 6,700 jobs are in prospect in the north Lanarkshire area. He knows as well as I do that we do not control the pace at which those jobs are manned-up.

Mr. Rhodes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that unless the Board of Trade looks after this industry better than it has done during the last two or three years there will be more closures—and in Yorkshire, too?

Coatbridge and Newhouse Industrial Estates

Mr. Dempsey: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to complete the undeveloped portions of the Coatbridge and Newhouse Industrial Estates; and how many jobs will be provided.

Mr. D. Price: An advance factory and two extensions for existing tenants are being built at Newhouse; these projects should provide about 400 jobs. Further


development of the Coatbridge Industrial Estate depends on the outcome of an application by an industrial firm now under consideration.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that to leave a portion of an industrial estate lying vacant, especially after providing the services, is an uneconomic proposition? Will he try to expedite the completion of these estates by building new factories to provide additional employment for the area?

Mr. Price: The bon. Gentleman will know that what is much more important than getting on with building factories is getting tenants for them when they are built. In our view, the programme that we are at present carrying out on the Coatbridge Industrial Estate is meeting the immediate needs of industry. We shall be only too willing to undertake further development there when there is some evidence that firms want to go there.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the implications of what he is saying? We constantly have reference to the desperate efforts which the Government are making to provide new jobs and new avenues of employment after they have been in power for twelve years and have told us that nationalisation was a gross failure and that private enterprise would do the job. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. Does not this prove beyond doubt that the industrial system is breaking down and is failing to provide more jobs?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question. It is an argument and a speech.

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state the amounts in grants and loans provided during the last 12 months under the Local Employment Act to projects in Aberdeen group of employment exchange area; and what is his present policy in this regard for that area.

Mr. D. Price: No offers of assistance under the Local Employment Act were made for projects in the Aberdeen area during 1962. My right hon. Friend's policy is to continue to use his powers under the Act to encourage the introduc-

tion and expansion of industry in Aberdeen. He will, of course, welcome any application from those already established in the area with sound projects to create new employment.

Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman state the names of the persons and firms to whom the grants and loans were made and the amounts in each case? Does he realise that the phrase used in the Act,
high and persistent unemployment exists or is threatened",
applies to Aberdeen and the North-East of Scotland?

Mr. Price: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think he heard the first part of the Answer. I said that no offers of assistance had been made during 1962, so I could not give him details about the firms which were offered assistance.

Mr. Jay: Does the visit of Lord Hail-sham to Glasgow last weekend mean that he has taken over the Board of Trade's job in Scotland as well as on the North-East Coast?

Film Quotas

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has under consideration for changing the film quota system; and when he will consult with the Cinematograph Films Council on the subject.

Mr. D. Price: My right hon. Friend is at present consulting the industry about the desirability of applying exhibitors' quota obligations to cinemas showing 70 millimetre films. He will consult the Cinematograph Films Council as soon as he has the views of representative bodies in the industry.

Co-production Film Treaties

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has now been made in the negotiation of co-production film treaties with European Governments; and when he expects the first treaty to be signed.

Mr. Green: The preparatory work for negotiations is nearly finished and my right hon. Friend hopes very soon to be able to discuss with the film producers and with the Federation of Film Unions his proposed instructions to the British


negotiators. So far as the last part of the Question is concerned, this is a matter which still depends on others besides ourselves.

Mr. Swingler: Can the Minister of State say why this is taking such a long time? Has it not been many months since this proposal was put forward and, I understand, agreed by practically all sections of the trade? Since certain people abroad, certainly in Italy, have been applying for such a treaty and facilities to be developed, what is the reason for this extraordinary delay?

Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman was, I think, warned by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 13th November, 1962, that a number of complications had to be cleared at this end before negotiations with other countries could start. To skimp work on this would only delay the negotiations themselves.

Export Merchants (Report)

Dr. Bray: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to secure the implementation of the recommendations in the Report of the Working Group on Export Merchants published in the Board of Trade Journal on 1st February, 1963.

Mr. Green: The Report by this informal Working Group suggests a number of ways in which export houses themselves and the national industrial organisations can help co-operation between manufacturers and merchants. The rôle of the Board of Trade has been to bring the group together, and to publicise its findings.

Dr. Bray: Does not the Minister of State feel that something a little more active is called for from the Board of Trade? The recommendations are modest enough in all conscience. Does not he feel that if there were any delay in implementing them it would be utterly disastrous? Is not he prepared that the State should play an active rôle in promoting exports by selling directly abroad through a State export house?

Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, within the limits of the reply I have given to his Question, there are certain actions which I can take. I do take them. I am very interested

in the rôle of export houses, and I hope that the export houses and their merchants know that.

U.S.S.R.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has studied the representations sent to him by the Boilermakers, Shipbuilders and Structural Workers, Salford branch, regarding the refusal of the Russian delegation offer to order ships worth £20 million because 10 per cent. of the payment had to be in Russian oil; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Green: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on 12th February.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not a fact that we are the only major country in Europe at present refusing Russian oil? Would not its acceptance immediately help to secure for us orders worth £35 million, not just for ships but for heavy engineering products as well? Who comes first—the unemployed, or a handful of American and British oil magnates?

Mr. Green: I wonder whether it is possible to get the hon. Gentleman to believe that no specific proposal has in fact been made to us. Therefore, to comment on a hypothetical one would not be helpful.

Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the oil companies have spent about £2,600 million on equipment, including £800 million on shipping, in the United Kingdom since 1946? Is not this providing employment in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Green: Yes, Sir.

Sir C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he will not accept the Soviet proposals to increase oil exports to Britain, in view of their offer to take in exchange consumer goods, which would provide increased employment in this country; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Green: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any Soviet offer to buy consumer goods in exchange for oil exports.

Sir C. Osborne: My hon. Friend says that he knows of no offer. If I bring him


evidence that seven years ago this type of offer was made and that I handed it to his predecessor at the Board of Trade, will he try to do something about it? Whatever my hon. Friend says, there is a feeling in the country that we could have more employment if we would take only a reasonable amount of oil from the Soviet Government.

Mr. Green: I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish me to do my best to safeguard the interests of the country by not commenting upon hypothetical matters of this kind. Any specific proposals that are made to us will, of course, be considered.

Mr. Dugdale: When such an offer is made, will the hon. Gentleman consider that last year we bought £8 million worth of oil from the United States of America and £19 million worth from Saudi Arabia, neither of which, to the best of my knowledge, is directly dependent upon Her Majesty's Government? Will he bear this in mind?

Mr. Green: We will bear all relevant considerations in mind.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that large quantities of Soviet oil are being sold to the Italians, who are refining it and reselling it in the sterling area, in return for which the Italian yards, such as Ansaldo, are deriving from Russia large orders for capital equipment? Are we not thus obtaining the worst of all worlds?

Mr. Green: I can only repeat to my hon. Friend, whose interest in this matter I fully understand, that we have no specific proposals yet before us to consider.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Cyril Osborne.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Gentleman to put this country in the position where we are excepted from all the orders—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the last Session, with the aid of the House in general, we put an end to the practice of asking bogus points of order because everybody knows that it is only cheating.

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent orders for tankers, floating cranes and fishing

vessels amounting to over £30 million placed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with Japanese shipbuilders; and what steps he proposes taking to improve credit terms and liberalise import restrictions to enable British shipyards to obtain a comparable share of Soviet business.

Mr. Green: My right hon. Friend is aware of this order. The facilities which the Export Credits Guarantee Department already offers in respect of ships, and which take full account of officially-backed credit from other countries, should be such as to enable shipbuilders to offer competitive terms in this as in other markets.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman has been telling us earlier that he is not aware that this sort of business is being conducted throughout Europe and the world.

Mr. Green: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rankin: That is the impression he has left with me. Is he now saying that he is fully aware of it and that it is being conducted with quite a number of countries? Can he say why it is that we are excluding Russia from any trading arrangements on shipbuilding, for example, into which we are now prepared to enter?

Mr. Green: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are making no such exclusion of Russian shipping requirements. If they wish to place orders with us, our shipyards and the Government will be exceedingly glad to see them doing so.

Mr. Rankin: Can I take it, then, from the hon. Gentleman that shipyards in this country, particularly in my division, will be encouraged by his Department if they are prepared to enter this sort of business?

Mr. Green: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to long-term credit facilities. I assure him that our ability to offer to our own builders long-term credit facilities is as good as any I know in the world.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman keeps telling us that no specific orders have come from the Russians. Can be say whether any discussions have been held with Russian representatives here to try to invite orders?

Mr. Green: We are always seeking trade within the trading agreements we conduct with the Soviet Union. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a previous Question. Perhaps it would be safer, and in the interests of everybody, if he read my previous answers and made sure of their terms.

Mr. P. Williams: The gist of a number of my hon. Friend's answers on this subject has been that the Government have been waiting for something to come to us. This is National Productivity Year—a year when selling means more than anything else. Is not the Government's approach particularly haphazard? Should there not be a more positive approach?

Mr. Green: I hope that I have misheard my hon. Friend. I hope that he is not suggesting that the Board of Trade should actually take upon itself the job of a State selling agency. I want him to appreciate, as I believe he does, that shipyards, amongst other industrial undertakings, from time to time receive inquiries from the Russians. We seek to encourage them and put them in a position to meet any orders which result. That I promise him is what we seek to do.

Mr. Jay: As there has been all this discussion in the Press and elsewhere about possible orders of this kind, surely the Board of Trade might approach the Soviet authorities and find out what possibilities there are.

Mr. Green: I am not responsible for what appears in the Press.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it is a real one. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Exports (Canada)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade how far the substantial fall in United Kingdom exports for the second half of 1962 was due to the 15 per cent. fall in exports to Canada; what representations he has made to the Canadian Government over their restriction of United Kingdom imports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Green: United Kingdom exports seasonally adjusted were 2 per cent. higher in the second half of 1962 than in the first half, though exports to Canada were 10 per cent. lower. We are in touch with the Canadian Government about the difficulties affecting our exports to Canada.

Sir C. Osborne: Since over the last twelve years Canada has sold to us £1,700 million worth of goods more than she has bought from us, should we not take more active steps? Does not my hon. Friend realise that there is no cure for unemployment unless we export more?

Mr. Green: As the main part of my job is to promote exports, I hope my hon. Friend will accept that I realise the connection between exports and unemployment. I point out to him, however, that our trade is based upon the multilateral principle of trading and not upon bilateral trading. Consequently, a deficit with one country should not be exaggerated.

Sir C. Osborne: Multilateral trading will not find work for our unemployed. I want to see more orders for goods that are produced here and will create work. Will not my hon. Friend do something about that?

Brandon

Mr. Ainsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of inquiries from firms wishing to come into the Brandon Urban District Council area of the north-west Durham constituency.

Mr. D. Price: During the past six months the Board has dealt with two inquiries from firms new to the area.

Mr. Ainsley: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this urban district over the last few years Hedley Hope Colliery, Esh Winning Colliery, Waterhouses Colliery, Ushaw Moor Colliery, New Brancepeth Colliery and ancillary undertakings have closed down and that the Government have brought nothing appreciable into the area to relieve the vast unemployment, which is not shown as far as the Local Employment Act is concerned? Will he consider the correspondence which he received a fortnight ago and give due consideration to the application for this area?

Mr. Price: I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Member, as, I think, he knows, that one of the two inquiries has resulted in a large project, that of the North British Rubber Company, going to the area. As I believe the hon. Member knows, this is likely to result in substantial employment opportunities and will make a considerable contribution to the area.

Durham

Mr. Grey: asked the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that unemployment in the Durham Employment Exchange area is now 4·7 per cent., he will add this area to the list under the Local Employment Act, 1960.

Mr. D. Price: Unemployment in the Durham Employment Exchange area in January was at a rate of 3·6 per cent. wholly unemployed, and during the past twelve months the rate has averaged 2·5 per cent. wholly unemployed. My right hon. Friend does not consider that he would be justified in adding this area to the list of development districts.

Mr. Grey: That is a completely ridiculous answer to the sincere request contained in my Question. Will the Minister look at it again? The figure of unemployment is 4·7 per cent. Is he aware that under the Local Employment Act the average is 4 per cent. and that, therefore, the figure is 7 points above the percentage which qualifies under the Act? Will he give consideration instead of making complete nonsense of the whole Act?

Mr. Price: There is no figure in the Act as to percentage of unemployment. The effect of the words is "when the President of the Board of Trade and the Board consider the unemployment to be high and persistent". No figure is given. My right hon. Friend has never committed himself to a figure in public. I point out to the hon. Member that projects sited in the Durham area which would be likely to provide employment for workers from the neighbouring development districts—and Durham is surrounded by development districts—would qualify for assistance under the Local Employment Act. Therefore, nearly any worthwhile project within the Durham Employment Exchange area would qualify under the Act.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Is the Minister saying that no specific figure is used by the Board of Trade as a yardstick? Is it not generally accepted that the figure is 4·5 per cent.?

Mr. Price: It may be generally accepted by the hon. Member and his Friends, but I assure him that there is no figure.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman had better do his homework.

Mr. Price: There is no question of doing homework. I am telling the hon. Member.

India (Durgapur)

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to assist the British consortium to finalise the contract for new works and extensions to the Durgapur Steelworks in India, in the face of competition from Japan.

Mr. Green: The Government have made India a loan of £22 million to enable British firms to carry out the extension of the existing British-built steelworks at Durgapur. My hon. Friend may, however, be referring to the proposed alloy steel plant, which will also be located in Durgapur and for which British and Japanese firms are in competition.

Mr. Elliott: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that many of the British firms who are members of the consortium have, by tendering successfully, brought a great deal of employment to the northern part of the country? Will he do his best in representations to his right hon. Friends to ensure that we get at least reasonable comparable credit facilities?

Mr. Green: I am willing to give my hon. Friend the assurance that that sort of consideration is certainly given.

Trade Treaties (British Shipping)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it a condition of any future trade treaty that a reasonable proportion of goods imported into the United Kingdom shall be carried in British ships.

Mr. Green: No, Sir. Our policy is to encourage free competition in international shipping, not to restrict it.

Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that nations with which we have an unfavourable trade balance are sending more and more of their trade with us in ships other than British? Is it not a fact that we are sending only 50 per cent. by weight of our trade in British ships? Is it not time that the Board of Trade kept a closer watch on the position?

Mr. Green: I assure my hon. Friend that we keep a close watch on the position. If he is raising questions of flag discrimination, for example, or what might be done against it, he should address himself to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Sir J. Duncan: While agreeing with the British policy, may I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that in the next Kennedy round at G.A.T.T. Britain takes the lead in stopping other countries using flag discrimination and such practices?

Mr. Green: I readily assure my hon. Friend that the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport consistently make representations to that effect.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the Ministry of Transport became responsible for shipping and shipbuilding there is the feeling among some of us that the Board of Trade is not quite as active on behalf of shipping interests as it was in the past? Can he give an undertaking that if that was true it is not true now?

Mr. Green: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the Board of Trade remains extremely interested in shipping.

Kuwait

Mr. Warbey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of British imports from and exports to Kuwait during the years 1958 to 1962, and the total value of shipments of engineering goods to that destination for the same five year period.

Mr. Green: The hon. Member will find that details of United Kingdom trade with Kuwait are readily available from Account IV of the appropriate

December issues of the Trade and Navigation Accounts which are documents Returned to the Order of this House. Exports of engineering products in the five year period 1958–1962 totalled approximately £33 million.

Mr. Warbey: As that is an average of only just over £6 million a year and as imports from Kuwait many times exceed our exports to Kuwait, does this not demonstrate conclusively that the Board of Trade is making a big mistake in suggesting that oil imports from the Middle East are necessary in order to improve our balance of payments with those countries?

Mr. Green: All that the figures demonstrate is that there is a lot of oil in Kuwait but not very many Kuwaitis.

Chinese Vice-President of Foreign Trade (Visit)

Mr. Gough: asked the President of the Board of Trade if a date has not been agreed for the proposed visit to this country of the Chinese Vice-President of Foreign Trade.

Mr. Green: This is now being discussed with the Chinese authorities in Peking.

Mr. Gough: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that desirable though any trade treaty may be, it should be based on a sound foundation? Before this visit takes place, will he put to the Chinese Government the claims of the pensioners and shareholders of the Shanghai Waterworks Company? This claim has been put forward for ten or fifteen years but has never been considered or met by the Chinese Government. Will my hon. Friend make very strong representations before we discuss other terms of trade with that Government?

Mr. Green: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but this visit is in order to show the gentlemen concerned something of British technical achievements and to give us the chance of some informal talks on Sino-British trade. If we make pre-conditions on particular points before the talks start, we shall perhaps never get to the particular points either.

Mr. Gough: Will my hon. Friend then also show the delegation some British moral achievements in that when we have obligations we carry them out?

Mr. Green: I shall be glad to do so.

American Firms, United Kingdom

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that American firms in Britain are now contemplating moving to Europe consequent on the failure of the Brussels negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Green: My right hon. Friend has no such evidence.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a sizeable American investment in Scotland, in particular? Is he aware that there is a good deal of concern in Scotland that there may be reasons why some of this investment should seek to transfer itself from Scotland to the Continent? Can he give a categorical assurance that no recent case and no investigation he has carried out so far leads him to understand that this is what is happening?

Mr. Green: To date, I can certainly give that assurance. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. Perhaps he is thinking of the Remington-Rand Company. We have been categorically assured—and I believe that assurance—that the transference of part of its work to Europe has nothing to do with the Common Market negotiations.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, whatever the reasons, 1,100 jobs have been lost as a result. What is his Department doing about it?

Mr. Green: That is a completely different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Derelict Buildings and Sites

Mr. Bottomley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to improve facilities for grants for clearing derelict buildings and sites.

Mr. Price: My right hon. Friend will continue to use his powers under the Local Employment Act to assist in the

clearance of derelict, neglected or unsightly land where this will further the purpose of the Act to provide employment for the benefit of development districts. He has no reason to believe that the facilities for grant provided by the Act are inadequate for that purpose.

Mr. Bottomley: Bearing in mind the persistent unemployment on Tees-side, will the hon. Gentleman consider giving Middlesbrough the same facilities as those areas scheduled under the Local Employment Act?

Mr. Price: The right hon. Gentleman is going a little further than his original Question. There is a Question a little later which bluntly asks that Tees-side be scheduled.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the Board of Trade consider giving assistance for the clearing up of the banks of the Tyne between Newcastle and the coast? Will he initiate talks with representatives of the North-East to see what can be done to provide work and make the approaches worthy of the river?

Mr. Price: I will be happy to look into that.

Mr. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see that local authorities are informed of the help they can get from the Government for this work?

Mr. Price: I do not accept, without investigation, the implications of that question, but I will discuss this with my right hon. Friend's Department to make sure that these facilities are made known to all local authorities concerned.

South Yorkshire

Mr. Mason: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the deterioration in trade in south Yorkshire; why the facilities of his Department have not been used to induce expansion of trade as much in this area as in other regions; what reply he has sent to the resolution of the Sheffield branch of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. D. Price: My right hon. Friend would expect south Yorkshire, like other


parts of the country, to benefit from the measures recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stimulate the economy as a whole. He does not consider that any special facilities to encourage industrial expansion are necessary in South Yorkshire, where the rate of wholly unemployed remains below that of Great Britain as a whole. My right hon. Friend has replied to the hon. Member about the resolution of the Sheffield Branch of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.

Mr. Mason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that trade is still deteriorating and that unemployment in south Yorkshire is on the increase? Is he aware that while we recognise that the aid of his Department is more urgently needed in other regions, we in south Yorkshire are satisfied in our own minds that he could do more to induce industry to come to the area and to encourage more trade and thus cut down the unemployment figures? Is he further aware that, while he is looking elsewhere, there is a danger of another unemployment blackspot growing in this region and that more positive action is therefore required not only by his Department but by the Government as a whole to solve it?

Mr. Price: I think that my original Answer indicated the way we are thinking about the problems of south Yorkshire, which we feel are amenable to general measures applying to the country as a whole. They are not as of now particular structural problems, like those in certain other regions, which give the case for separate treatment. However, I will bear in mind that the hon. Gentleman has said about keeping an eye on whether there may be structural changes in future.

Mr. A. Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that while we may not be asking for direction of industry into south Yorkshire, we do not want Yorkshire firms to be encouraged to go to other parts of the country?

Mr. Price: In all these things one has to get the priorities right, and the major priority at the moment is that where industrial expansion takes place it should be in the development districts.

Alkyd Resins

Mr. Lubbock: asked the President of the Board of Trade what the percentage of duty to raw material cost would be for an alkyd resin manufactured from wholly imported raw materials and containing 35 per cent. vegetable oil, 42 per cent. phthalic anhydride and 23 per cent. pentaerythritol; what the percentage duty would be if the proportions of the raw materials were, respectively, 70 per cent., 22 per cent., and 8 per cent.; and what is the percentage duty on imported solid alkyds.

Mr. Green: Without knowing the landed cost of the raw materials concerned, the details requested cannot be calculated.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that foreign producers of alkyd resins are in a very advantageous position relative to British manufacturers because of the astronomical rates of duty on the raw materials concerned? Does he not, therefore, agree that it would be a big mistake to impose the recent anti-dumping duty Order? Will he try to appreciate that the home producers of alkyd resins cannot understand his persistent failure to consider the position?

Mr. Green: That is a totally different question from that on the Order Paper.

Billingham

Mr. Slater: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that owing to the lack of orders at the Furness shipbuilding yard more men are to be given notice; and what assistance his department will give to offset this redundancy;
(2) if he is aware that the percentage of unemployed in Billingham is 7·8 per cent; and whether he will schedule Billingham as a development area.

Mr. D. Price: Billingham is in the Tees-side group of employment exchange areas, where the rate of wholly unemployed in January was 6·3 per cent. My right hon. Friend is also aware that the Furness Shipbuilding Company have recently declared 700 redundancies to take place during February. As I said to


the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) on 12th February, my right hon. Friend is considering whether he would be justified in listing the Tees-side area as a development district under the Local Employment Act.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if these 700 men do finish work within the next week or two the unemployment figure on Tees-side, in Billingham and Haverton Hill in particular, will be seriously affected? Is he further aware that the Furness shipbuilding yard gives work not only to people in the Billingham and Haverton Hill areas but also to men from Middlesbrough and Stockton and the Hartle-pools? Should not the Board of Trade take drastic action about this position?

Mr. Price: I can assure the hon. Member that those considerations are very much in my right hon. Friend's mind.

Mr. Awbery: Can the hon. Gentleman say what British tonnage is now under construction in foreign yards and whether any steps are being taken by the Government to persuade British shipowners to have their ships built in this country and not abroad?

Mr. Price: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question. That does not arise from this Question.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why there are these continual delays? What is holding up the scheduling of Tees-side, where there is persistent high unemployment?

Mr. Price: I prefer not to say anything more today.

HONOURS LIST

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister when he last conducted a review of the departmental procedure of submitting names for the Honours List; and what changes were made.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member on 7th February. The departmental procedure is always under review.

Mr. Mason: Is the Prime Minister aware that this system has already produced a semi-retired block of 87 dames, knights and baronets on his side of the House and that annually 10 per cent. of the awards in the Honours List go to Conservative Party political workers and that outside the House—

Mr. Speaker: I had occasion last week to explain to the hon. Member what the principle was. I thought that he understood it. He can ask about the departmental procedure for submitting names, but his supplementary question goes wide beyond that.

Mr. Mason: I am afraid that there is such a long list of negatives about this matter that it is very difficult to keep on the lines. May I rephrase my question and ask the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that this is a fair and just system, that it does not lean politically heavily on one side, that the awards of honours are not mainly going to those in the Conservative Party ranks instead of to the people who justly deserve them and to those who give voluntary services?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's question is about departmental procedure.

Mr. Shinwell: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to conduct another review? When he does, will he take into consideration the fact that there are many of his hon. Friends who have not yet been awarded an honour? Would he be good enough to inform the House why they have not yet been honoured?

The Prime Minister: After the next twelve years of our being in office that will no doubt be remedied.

NORTH-EAST

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Prime Minister what decisions have now been made by Her Majesty's Government following the recent report by the Lord President of the Council regarding the situation in the North-East; which Ministers are affected; and what consequential arrangements have been made.

The Prime Minister: My noble Friend has given a full report on his recent visit to the North-East and his recommendations are being examined urgently. As


and when decisions are made the Departments responsible will announce the measures to be taken.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that matters will be speeded up and that we shall not have the constant delays which we have had from the Board of Trade and other Departments concerned with this work in the past?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We will deal with them as urgently as possible.

Dr. Bray: Can the Prime Minister say what new considerations there could possibly be which would alter the argument for the North-East and which have not been known for many months? Is he aware that even today continuing delays are losing orders to Tees-side from the failure to schedule it as a development district?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter I should like to look into. I heard a supplementary question about it just now, but I should like to look into that further. On the broader issue, several questions have to be settled and we will deal with them as quickly as we can.

SCOTTISH COUNCIL (MEETING)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on his recent meeting with representatives of the Scottish Council; and what immediate plans he has for implementing their proposals.

Mr. Ross: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.

The Prime Minister: The Scottish Council's representatives placed before me their analysis of Scotland's economic problems and we discussed how the Government could most effectively contribute to the promotion of economic growth in Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: Is not the right bon. Gentleman finally convinced that the Local Employment Act, on which he and the Government lean so heavily, is totally inadequate for solving this problem? In the words of Lord Polwarth, has it really

sunk in on this occasion? If it has, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to bring forward amendments to that legislation and additional incentives to industrialists to go to Scotland and get the 150,000 people off the dole who have been on it far too long?

The Prime Minister: I could not accept that the Local Employment Act has failed. It has been very successful. Additional measures will be announced in due course.

Mr. Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that the measure of his success can be judged by the fact that unemployment in Scotland is now rising towards 140,000 to 150,000? Is he aware that the people of Scotland expect a little more than the vague optimism with which he soothes delegations? When will we get a statement of positive policy designed to meet the special circumstances of Scotland, the North-East and Wales and so on, in addition to the general policies already announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which are quite inadequate for these areas? Can he tell me specifically what part the Scottish mining industry is to play in the new power programme which has just been announced?

The Prime Minister: Certain steps have been taken and announced, and others will be taken and announced in due course. On the more general question, there is, as the hon. Gentleman says, the broad question of the economy as a whole, of expansion as a whole, and the separate question as to how those benefits can best be extended to Scotland.

Mr. John MacLeod: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that it is felt that there should be a greater distribution of industry in Scotland? There is still too much depopulation from the north to the south, aggravating the position. Was this matter taken into account during these meetings?

The Prime Minister: These meetings were private, but I think they covered a very wide range. They lasted for several hours, and I think that both this one and the one with the trade unions were of great value to me and my colleagues, and I think they were regarded as of some value by the members of the deputation.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that many specific proposals have been put to him—for instance, the Highland Development Board, new generating plant, and improvements in Scottish ports and roads—and he consistently says that he is considering them? Can he tell the House when he will come to a decision on whether he will accept or reject them?

The Prime Minister: Some have already been dealt with and announced, and others will be announced as decisions are reached.

DISARMAMENT

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consult the Commonwealth Prime Ministers with a view to presenting to the 17-Power Disarmament Conference a compromise disarmament plan based on the latest Russian and United States proposals and the 1961 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' programme.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister what fresh disarmament initiative he has taken in accordance with his letter to Mr. Khrushchev of 28th October.

The Prime Minister: I believe our best hope of progress is for all of us to persevere with the detailed negotiations at Geneva, in which the four Commonwealth countries represented are playing an active part. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt knows, the United States draft plan, which we support, follows the lines of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' statement of March, 1961, which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers themselves re-affirmed in September, 1962. The United States Delegation at Geneva have also tabled proposals which we welcome for measures to reduce the risk of war. I do not think that new initiatives would necessarily be the best way to make progress at present.

Mr. Henderson: Is not the present deadlock at Geneva due mainly to the fact that both the United States and the Soviet Government are resting on their respective disarmament plans? Should not Her Majesty's Government take their own initiative in this matter? Could not they make a great contribution to a solution of this problem if they were to follow the suggestions made by the Secretary of

State for Foreign Affairs that they should take the best parts of both these plans and include them in a compromise plan of their own?

The Prime Minister: That suggestion has been followed up in the plan for reducing the risk of war, which is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, a combination of the two plans. With regard to the rest of it, it is largely a combination of the original American plan and that which has the support of all the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Mayhew: But are not the Government's efforts in this field very limited and disappointing? Do not the terms of the letter to Mr. Khrushchev, to which my Question refers, imply that if Mr. Khrushchev withdrew his missiles from Cuba there was an obligation on the Government to make a new initiative specifically in the field of stage one of the new disarmament process? If this is not what the reference to disarmament meant, what did it mean?

The Prime Minister: We have made one plan after another. It is not a question of new initiative. It is what I was hoping for and am still hoping for, a new will on the part of the Soviet Government to have serious negotiations.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the Commonwealth Declaration on disarmament in 1961 was taken as giving some new hope in the disarmament field, would the right hon. Gentleman recognise the great urgency of this now, following the more forthcoming attitude shown by Mr. Khrushchev in this matter? Does the Prime Minister realise that those who have studied in detail the American and Russian plans, as I am sure he has, recognise that the gaps between them are not beyond the possibility of bridging, and is it not time for the United Kingdom Government to take the initiative in proposing the compromise that is possible between the Russian and American drafts?

The Prime Minister: Before I answer the question, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to congratulate him on his appointment to the high position of Leader of the Opposition. I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that I hope he will live many years to enjoy it.
With regard to this extremely complicated matter, we have got the combination of our plan and the American plan and really what is wanted is very much the same as in this test ban thing which has gone on for so long. What is wanted is not merely new initiative in trying to think up new words. It is really the will to negotiate seriously.

Mr. Wilson: Might I first thank the Prime Minister for his courteous if slightly bewhiskered comment, and will he allow me to return the courtesy by saying that I regard my tenure of this position as being just long enough to keep the seat nice and warm for him?
On the more important issue that is raised by this Question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman again whether he will give instructions to our representative in Geneva to attempt to reconcile the two drafts and put forward an initiative, and will he consider at an early stage making a report to this House?

The Prime Minister: We are working at this and we have the great advantage of four Commonwealth countries associated with us with whom we are working in close co-operation. We are anxious to make progress, but, as the right hon. Gentleman and anyone who has been in these negotiations for many years knows, it is, as I say, not merely a question of putting out the right things on paper. It is really a question of getting down to serious negotiation about them.

ECONOMIC SITUATION (REPRESENTATIONS)

Mr. Pentland: asked the Prime Minister how many representations have been made to him by trading, commercial and industrial concerns, expressing anxiety and concern at the current economic position prevailing in Great Britain; and what replies he has sent.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will be glad to know that very few of the letters I receive fall within the category he has described. In replying to my post I deal with the points raised by my correspondents.

Mr. Pentland: Would not the Prime Minister agree that grave concern is being expressed about our economic position and other matters of policy throughout

the country as a whole? Is the Prime Minister aware that this concern is being further aggravated because of rumour and counter-rumour in the Press about his personal standing in his own party? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be in the national interest if he now decided to seek a fresh mandate from the electorate about his party's future policy?

The Prime Minister: That might be a very interesting suggestion, but it is not the Question on the Order Paper, which asks what answers I make to my correspondents.

SOUTH-WEST REGION

Miss Vickers: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that there has been a permanent difficulty in regard to employment in Plymouth and the southwest of England for a number of years; and if he will give an assurance that the Government, in their efforts to reduce unemployment in the North-East and other parts of the United Kingdom, will not overlook the necessity of finding further employment for people living in the South-West.

The Prime Minister: Unemployment in the South-West Region as a whole has been slightly below the national average. But there are some areas within the region where unemployment is high and which are listed as development districts under the Local Employment Act. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will continue his efforts to encourage industrial development there. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there should be no problem of persistent unemployment in Plymouth.

Miss Vickers: May I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that not only Jarrow but Plymouth had a hunger march in the 'thirties, and that there is a chronic disease of unemployment in the West Country? Will he also remember that the payment of industry there is very low, and will be promise to keep an eye on the situation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. In 1962 the annual average rate in the region was 1·8 per cent., and I think that in Plymouth there are four new factories


which have been there some little time, and others are coming, and I think that the dockyard is likely to give a continuously high level of employment.

CUBA (BRITISH SHIPPING)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has received from President Kennedy to his representations that British ships trading with Cuba should suffer no restrictions from trading also with the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal gave the hon. Gentleman on 11th February.

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman did not tell me anything. Is the Prime Minister aware that I thought I would receive a better reply from him? Is he also aware that there is great anxiety that we shall be pushed about in this matter, and that, as he told us the other day that this country must be free to trade with all the world, we expect Her Majesty's Government to make this clear beyond a peradventure to the U.S.A.?

The Prime Minister: Yes. But that is just what my right hon. Friend did say to the hon. Member. He said:
We have made clear throughout that we do not approve of any restriction on freedom of navigation in times of peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1963; Vol. 671, c. 122.]
In point of fact we have discussed this and representations have been made, although the effect at the moment is very little.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister transmit to President Kennedy the evidence of many Conservative visitors to Cuba who have borne witness to the fact that the American economic measures have only strengthened Cuban support for Castro?

The Prime Minister: This is a very complicated question, upon which I really would not like to express a view off the cuff.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American Administration have recently boasted that they have reduced free world trade with Cuba to one-tenth of its former level? Does the Prime Minister really think that that is

a sensible way of trying to free Cuba from domination by the Soviet bloc?

The Prime Minister: The position that still remains in Cuba is one that causes the Administration of the United States considerable anxiety; especially in relation to the very large number—about 17,000 or 18,000—Russian troops who are, in a sense, occupying the country.

DAEN (YEMENI INCURSION)

Mr. Healey: Mr. Healey (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the invasion of Aden Federal Territory by troops of the Yemen Republic and what action Her Majesty's Government are taking.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): Her Majesty's Government have received reports from the High Commissioner indicating that an incursion into Federal territory by a small Yemeni force has been made, apparently during the course of operations against the Royalists in the Harib area. Our latest information does not indicate any activity on the part of this force.
We are in touch with the High Commissioner, and I hope to be able to make a more detailed statement very soon.

Mr. Healey: Can the hon. Member confirm, first, that the scale of this incursion has not been just that of the normal tribal skirmishing which has been going on on this rather ill-defined frontier for many years now? Secondly, can he tell us whether he is satisfied that none of the sheikhs in the Aden Federation has been giving assistance to the enemies of the Federal Republic—especially the Sheikh of Beihan? Thirdly, does not this incident underline the need for giving diplomatic recognition to the Government in Sana, as nearly all the allies of Her Majesty's Government have already done?

Mr. Fisher: So far as we know, the incursion is not on a large scale. About 120 men have been seen on our side of the frontier. So far as I know, the Emir of Beihan has not been rendering assistance to the Royalists. If he has done so it has been without our knowledge or authority. As the hon. Member knows, the United Kingdom practice is


to recognise a Government when we are satisfied that it is in effective control, and the position in the Yemen, as he also knows, is still very unsettled.

Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Member really telling the House that the Government in Sana has less control over the Yemen territory than the control exercised by the recently recognised Government of Iraq over Kurdistan?

Mr. Fisher: Iraq does not come within my sphere of responsibility. The Republican authorities in the Yemen apparently have control of most of the principal towns, but not of the large tribal areas all round, and in the mountainous regions, which probably comprise a greater number of the population than do the town areas.

Mr. P. Williams: Is the Minister aware that this incident and the background of internal dissension in the Yemen show how sound the Government's decision has been in this case not to recognise the Republican forces? Will he understand that many hon. Members on this side of the House appreciate the air of oriental calm on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the Minister say what request for help Her Majesty's Government have received from the rulers of the South Arabian Federation, and what reply the Government have made to any such request for help?

Mr. Fisher: I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind. We have received requests to deal with the incursion, if that is what he means. I would prefer not to go into further details at present. As the hon. Member knows, we are not represented in Sana. I hope to make another statement on this matter very shortly.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the Minister say how he knows that no arms, ammunition or assistance are being sent to the Royalists from the Sheikh of Beihan? How has he obtained this knowledge? Does he really know, or is he just guessing?

Mr. Fisher: I was rather careful in what I said in answer to the previous supplementary question. I said that as

far as I knew this was not so, and that, if it was being done, it was not with our authority. But this is very wide of the original Question which was put to me.

HOUSING LAND (BIRMINGHAM, LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER)

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the provision of land for housing for Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.
As the House may recall, I referred during the debate on the Address to the urgent need to increase the rate of slum clearance in these three cities, and I said that the authorities could assume in making their programmes that the land would be available. Bigger programmes are planned and the Government have been reviewing the land prospects.
First, Birmingham and Liverpool. The Government have now decided themselves to make a substantial contribution by proposing the designation of two new towns, one at Redditch for Birmingham and the other at Runcorn for Liverpool. The intention would be that at both places there should be expansion to about 70,000 population; but if there are objections they will be heard at a public inquiry before a final decision is made. These proposed new towns would do much to improve the prospects. They would provide for private development as well as public.
But the needs of both cities are so great that they can only be met by a comprehensive programme involving, as well as new towns, the intensive redevelopment of cleared sites within the cities, some building on nearby land, and greater progress in town expansion schemes. Both the city councils are willing to co-operate in such a comprehensive programme. In particular, they will reinforce even more the efforts of smaller towns to expand by drawing population from Birmingham and Liverpool.
My Department will be especially concerned to help forward the town development schemes at Widnes, Ellesmere Port, Daventry and Worcester.
It must be some time before large numbers of houses could be built in the proposed new towns, and it may be that still more land will have to be found in the meanwhile to enable the slum clearance programmes to be accelerated to the highest practicable level over the next few years. With this in mind I am considering whether any modifications are needed in Lancashire County Council's proposals for a Merseyside green belt and I shall shortly discuss this with the county council.
In the case of Birmingham, I am asking the city council to examine whether there is need for still more land to sustain its programme. I am suggesting to the council that if there is it should consult with its neighbouring county councils about finding it and should then put proposals to me as necessary.
Manchester. The city council has pressed on me the case for a new town to meet their needs. The Government accept that in spite of the efforts which the council is itself making at Westhoughton and elsewhere, Manchester's housing programme will need further development on the scale of a new town. But a suitable site, or sites, will be difficult to find in this area, and I propose, after further investigation, to consult with the local authorities about it. While, therefore, the Government accept the need, they have as yet no specific proposal to make.
In the meantime, the Government look to Manchester to press ahead with town development schemes at Winsford, Macclesfield and Crewe. The city council will also need to consider, in consultation with the county councils, whether further residential land ought to be allocated in the years immediately ahead.
The sum of these proposals for the three cities should, together with the new towns at Skelmersdale and Dawley which have already been authorised, cater for their land requirements until the 1970s.
The longer term needs of the Midlands and the North-West are now being studied by my Department and I expect that provisional conclusions will emerge later this

year. But it is clear that the proposals that I have announced today are both necessary in themselves and will fit in to the long-term plan.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that his statement will be received, on the whole, with gratification by hon. Members on this side who have for so long urged on the Government the need for more new towns?
May I ask three questions? First, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the two new towns he has in mind are so located that they can develop as genuine new towns and not as satellites?
Secondly, can he ensure that these aspects of Government policy for which he is responsible are properly coordinated with other aspects, in particular, the attitude of the Board of Trade towards the location of industry, and with Government policy towards the railways and other means of transport?
Thirdly, referring to that part of his statement which dealt with redevelopment and the use of nearby land, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that altogether these proposals mean, on the one hand, a great expenditure of public money, and, on the other, a great increase in some places in the value of land which is private property? What proposals have the Government for seeing that private persons who will greatly benefit from this development make some contribution towards its public cost?

Sir K. Joseph: On the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, these are intended to be balanced communities. The sites which have been chosen are natural growth points well adapted to industrial expansion. But to be realistic, it will not be a disadvantage that travel to work from them is practicable to the nearby cities as well.
The hon. Gentleman went on to question whether Government policy as a whole is co-ordinated on this issue. I can assure the House that it is. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has, of course, an overriding duty to the development districts. But, subject to that, he will do his best to steer industry to these overspill areas.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's third question arises on this statement.

Sir J. Barlow: On the question of the development of Manchester, is my right hon. Friend aware that all three suggestions relate to the south of the city? Will he consider the possibility and advisability of extending Manchester to the north, where the land is of less agricultural value, where very often it is higher and more healthy, and will he bear in mind that there are many other advantages in extending to the north rather than to the south?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the town development scheme which I happened to mention. Of course, Manchester has a number of town development schemes all round and what I am saying today is that the search for extra land on the scale of a new town for Manchester will be conducted all round the city.

Mr. Grimond: I welcome any proposal for slum clearance. May I ask two questions of the right hon. Gentleman? Is there not a shortage of skilled labour in the building industry, and, if so, what proposals has he for increasing the supply? Is it not a fact that the towns will not be self-sufficient new towns, but will be dormitories? What proposals has he for siting self-sufficient new towns particularly in areas of high unemployment away from the Midlands? Is he aware that there is a need in Scotland, in the north of England and north of Manchester?

Sir K. Joseph: I must repeat that these are not satellite or dormitory towns. It is intended that they should be balanced communities and be able to attract industry because of their natural advantages. The question of extra skilled men in the building industry is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works. But both he and I consider the programme envisaged by the Government to be such that with all the output of the traditional industry we shall have to look to industrialised building, including industrialised housing, to help us to get the extra output.
On the third point I must point out that land is the primary bottleneck in these big cities. It is not the primary bottleneck in the North-East. I would not presume to speak for Scotland.

Mr. G. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that his decision to base a new town at Redditch will be very much welcomed in Birmingham, because it gives promise of helping more quickly with the housing problem than would a policy based completely on an individual new town?

Mrs. Braddock: Has the Minister made any inquiries from Liverpool about how many people would be prepared to move from the centre and the areas of Liverpool to Runcorn in view of the difficulty about the new town of Ellesmere Port? Further, following the Question I asked some time ago, has any inquiry been made in Liverpool to see how much spare land there is which could be used immediately instead of waiting years for new housing sites?

Sir K. Joseph: I invited the hon. Lady to send me details of the sites which she has in mind. I am saying that we have in these big cities a need for all four initiatives to go on simultaneously—new towns, town development, building nearby and intense development of empty sites in the city.
As to the willingness of people to move to Runcorn I think, from the experience of new towns elsewhere, that provided work is available they will be only too glad to move.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Referring to the question about developing to the north of Manchester, asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Macclesfield is nowhere the north of Manchester? Will he take into account the fact that industry must come along to give jobs to the people before we get the people there? Also, will he remember that Manchester could do much more to help itself with its housing problem and start to develop its own areas in the city and on the outskirts?

Sir K. Joseph: I will remember all that my hon. Friend has said, but in defence of Manchester I must say that during the last few years Manchester has made strenuous efforts, including those made in Westhoughton recently.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that the new town in the Birmingham area is for the


use of people not only in Birmingham, but in the surrounding Black Country towns, which are very overcrowded?

Sir K. Joseph: Without wishing to underestimate the needs of the Black Country towns generally, I must repeat that this is primarily for Birmingham.

Mrs. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Manchester will be rather disappointed that it has not got a new town? Is he aware that we are having to send people out into so many different districts at present that we are virtually nibbling at the problem of our slum clearance? Is he also aware that it is not that we have no declared areas, but that we have not the land on which to put people in order to rebuild on the existing sites, and that people are not yet willing to go out to other towns, whether it be Crewe, or Macclesfield, or other places?

Sir K. Joseph: I certainly realise the scale of Manchester's needs. But I think that the hon. Lady will be encouraged to know that whereas Manchester has averaged about 1,600 completions a year for the last five years, it is hoping to touch 5,000 next year.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister now set a time limit to the sterilisation of valuable sites while overspill discussions are going on? Is he aware that for nearly three years a large and valuable site at Swynnerton, in Staffordshire, has been unused and sterilised while awaiting a decision about a new town for Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that. Can we have a time limit so that we may know when the site may be used?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot give a time limit, but I can say that the sooner we can produce the results of the surveys

which are going on in the North-West and the Midlands the sooner we can come to a decision.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss this now. I think that 18 hon. Members are concerned in just two cities, so we really cannot cover all the ground.

Mr. V. Yates: On a point of order. As Birmingham has been specifically mentioned, Mr. Speaker, surely an opportunity should be given for an hon. Member who represents that city to ask a question.

Sir K. Thompson: May I know on what basis, Mr. Speaker, you assess the importance of Manchester as being four times greater than that of Liverpool?

Mr. Speaker: I looked eagerly in the direction of the hon. Member but he remained seated at the time.
I do not think that Birmingham has been wholly unrepresented. I realise the wide interest in this matter, but we must get on to other things.

Mr. V. Yates: With all due respect to what you have said, Mr. Speaker, no hon. Member from Birmingham has taken part in this discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I beg to differ. The right hon. Member opposite who spoke is the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. G. Lloyd), which is not Birmingham. Surely, on this vital matter, we ought to be allowed to put a question to the Minister about its effect on Birmingham.

Mr. Speaker: If the House would like to relieve the Chair of the burdensome, troublesome and heart-breaking duty of selecting hon. Members to ask questions and make speeches, that would be perfectly welcome to me, but until it does it will have to rest with me and I cannot be dictated to by others.

JURIES

3.51 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the jury system.
The main purpose of my proposed Bill is to ensure that all voters appearing on the Electoral Register shall be generally eligible for jury service and that the property qualification enacted in the Juries Act, 1825, shall be repealed. There will be, of course, ancillary provisions, but in the time at my disposal I think it only necessary for me to say that the House will realise that some of these have already been dealt with very well indeed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and that everyone in the House knows what the ancillary provisions are likely to be. Halsbury's "Laws of England" defines juries as follows:
Juries are bodies of persons convened by process of law to represent the public"—
I emphasise "to represent the public"—
and to discharge Limn oath or by affirmation defined public duties.
As the House is aware, since 1825—that is, for a period of 138 years—an illogical, ridiculous and indefensible system has been in existence which has divided the nation as to eligibility for jury service into first-class, second-class and third-class citizens. At one time designation of householders of first-class citizenship in this respect sometimes depended on the number of windows which a house possessed. That, of course, was absurd, but almost equally absurd is the distinction which still prevails.
To be a fit and proper person competent to serve on a jury one must be a householder of premises the rateable value of which must be at least £30 per annum in Middlesex and the County of London and £20 per annum outside that area, or one must be the owner of £10 a year in real estate or £20 a year in leaseholds held for not less than 21 years. One may vote to elect a Member of Parliament without any such qualifications, although, incidentally, that person may have those possessions.
I made a check in the register of my constituency some time ago and found that of the 51,223 eligible to vote in Parliamentary or local elections only

2,847, in consequence of the archaic law as it stands in respect of juries, were eligible for jury service. The rest I describe as second-class citizens not entitled to sit on juries, but at least this applies to both men and women. The third class of citizens, according to our present system, is women and only 164 in the constituency, which has nearly 52,000 electors, are eligible to serve on juries. So only 2,863 men and 164 women in my constituency are credited by the law with gifted specialist talent. They being householders or property owners are designated as possessing mental and other faculties necessary to judge their fellow citizens in accordance with the definition in Halsbury.
The law, however, says that, according to the rules of court, all persons qualified or liable to serve as jurors must be summoned to serve on juries without distinction of sex. When selecting the persons from the jurors' book for the panel, the sheriff must select from amongst them such a number of women as will bear the same proportion as near as may be to the number of men on the panel, as the totals of men and women are proportionate to cover cases on the jurors' book. The whole procedure is absolute nonsense. Ridiculous situations arise. Take, for example, the position in different towns of the husband's and wife's rights. One authority has argued that a general householder's liability for service on a jury should be assessed in accordance with the share of the rates they pay. Thus, where the persons have an equal interest the house would need to be of a net value of at least £40 or over to make both eligible for that service.
Birmingham practice is based on the view that since joint householders are equally liable for a portion of the rates the question of apportionment does not apply. In Manchester, council houses are on single tenancies and where there are joint householders of private property it is the practice to mark neither for jury service. In Liverpool, it is the practice to mark the husband and not the wife. Wolverhampton broadly follows the same principle. In Walsall, the principle of joint liability for service of both householders is accepted where joint householding is known, although administrative technicalities seem to mean that it is not


applied to council houses. In 1956 Walsall asked the Home Office what it should do with regard to joint holders' eligibility for service on juries. The Home Office said, "We cannot tell you. It is a matter of law and will have to be decided by the law courts." The whole situation is absurd.
Under the new Rating and Valuation Act the genius of the Government is such that it is considered necessary for the rateable values of houses to go up from below £20 to three times as much and thus those who were not capable, whose mentality was considered to be such that they ought not to be on a jury, overnight become possessed of all the genius necessary to judge their fellow citizens. A professor, a doctor-at-law, a psychologist living in lodging, has no right to sit on a jury, but the landlady who supplies them with tea or coffee in the morning has that right.
We have been pressing for this reform for a long time. Everyone in the country who knows about it is also doing so, womenfolk in particular. I understand that an hon. Lady opposite is to oppose this Motion. Goodness knows why. The official bodies of women believe that something must be done about this question quickly. Pressure on the Government has been building up for well over a year. I asked Question after Question on the matter and we were eventually told in November that a Departmental committee was to be set up. Mark this, from November until last night no committee had been appointed, but by a strange coincidence there appeared on the Order Paper today a Question for Written Answer, asking what was happening about that committee.
The Home Secretary's reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) was:
I am glad to be able to inform the House that Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest has accepted my invitation to serve on the Committee … to inquire into the law …".
As if it were not as plain as a pikestaff that the law is ridiculous at present. All too often committees are known to have very protracted meetings and when they report in a year or two the Government decide whether they will accept the report or not, which may take another year or two. It was the same in the case of my Bill about flick knives. The Government

took four years to make up their mind to allow that Bill to go through.
We cannot tolerate this kind of thing. It is held up to ridicule by anyone who has any sense at all and I appeal to the House not to be set aside by this kind of flimsy Answer because it will take an unconscionable length of time before anything can be done.
If I am given leave to introduce the Bill, and a committee is set up, then by all means let the Government help. The Bill could be amended in Committee. I am certain that no one will set up a different system from the register system as the basis for this service, with any exceptions which may be absolutely necessary. In these circumstance, I cannot see how any reasonable person—and I call even on the reasonable persons on the other side of the House—can possibly allow this state of affairs to continue.
I hope that there will be an opportunity for this matter to be discussed in Committee by hon. Members, all of whom know what is necessary and who are just as capable as any outside body of making a decision on the matter.

4.7 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport): I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) on the sincere way in which he has put forward his Motion. I know of the tremendously hard work that he has done in getting all the facts. As he himself said, this is a very complicated pattern on which we have to work. I am a third-class citizen, as he rightly pointed out.

Sir B. Janner: It is not a complicated matter.

Mr. Speaker: It is not in accordance with our practice to allow interventions in proceedings under this Standing Order.

Miss Vickers: I took down the words of the hon. Gentleman. He said that it was a very complicated situation and I agree with him that it is. It is for this reason that I ask the House not to give leave to the hon. Gentleman to bring in his Bill today.
The hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) sought to put before the House on 20th March, 1962, a two-Clause Bill and this was rejected because it was felt that it did not go far enough.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West said that women were anxious to see a change in the law, and he is quite right, but they are not anxious to see a change in the law in respect only of women. They think that there are a great many matters in which the law should be changed, in regard to jurors, and they would much prefer to have a comprehensive survey.
Speaking as the chairman of the Status of Women Committee, some members of which I have consulted, and which represents a great many women's organisations, we feel that this is not a matter to be dealt with only from the feminist point of view, as the hon. Lady for Lanark said in her speech last year. We would like to see the whole of the jury system looked into. Any alteration in the jury system should not be made in the form of piecemeal legislation.
With all respect to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, I feel that his Bill cannot be fully comprehensive of all the points which one would wish to bring forward, otherwise it would have to be tremendously long and complicated. I think, therefore, that it would be much better for the Government to bring such a Bill forward. We have to thank the hon. Member for Lanark, because her speech last year so impressed the Home Secretary that he promised that there would be a Departmental Committee. That promise was on 15th November. He is now setting this Committee up as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It was felt, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the Juries Act, 1825, the qualification mostly being a householder, the Sex Disqualification Removal Act, 1939, and the Women Jurors (Criminal Cases) Rules, 1920, needed looking into and some revision made. I think that the House will agree with that.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said in opposing the Motion introduced by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark, this is not a political matter; it is a matter for administration. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, who is a very distinguished member of the legal profession, will agree that this problem must be looked at purely

from the point of view of the administration of the law.
I was very glad when my right hon. Friend decided to set up a Departmental Committee and, like the hon. Member, I hope that it will not take too long over its deliberations. I think that the House will agree that this is the kind of problem into which it is essential to have a full inquiry. All the various anomalies—there are many of them—will be clearly seen. I personally hope that radical changes will be made. In the Juries Act, 1949, brought in by the Labour Party, no change was made in the rules governing the selection of jurors. However, as the hon. Member pointed out, many things have changed since then. The Government have now thought it right to look into the whole question of bringing all the various Acts I have mentioned up to date. I think that the qualifications should be on a local government electoral register basis. If a person has the right to vote, he should have the right to serve on a jury.
The position of women is still difficult, because in many cases they are not householders. There are other things apart from the qualification of being a householder, for example, if a woman is a householder but happens to be a professional woman—a doctor—she is exempt from jury service.
There is another question which was not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but which I should like to see looked into. There is some evidence that accused persons, who have the right to exercise a challenge in respect of seven members of a jury without giving any reasons, are apt to challenge women members, particularly in cases involving sex or cruelty to children. This point should be looked into. Further, I believe that the maximum age for jury service is 60. Many hon. Members feel well qualified to carry on their work here after they have reached 60. I do not understand why people cannot act as jurors when they have reached 60 years of age.
The hon. Member has done a great service in moving his Motion. I am sure that he is wholly concerned with the administration of the law. I hope, therefore, that he will not mind if his Motion is rejected. He will have achieved his object, because he has just anounced that


a Departmental Committee is to be set up. I am certain that his Motion for leave to bring in his Bill has hurried up the formation of this Committee.
The hon. Member will be able to play an even greater part in future when the Committee has finished its deliberations. The hon. Gentleman may even wish to give evidence to the Committee, in view of the research that he has already done. I think that the result of setting up a committee of this kind will be beneficial and will effect an improvement in the jury system on an all-round basis and not

merely on the various points that the hon. hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

I therefore ask the House to refuse leave to bring in the Bill, although I repeat that the hon. Gentleman has done a great service today in moving his Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 205.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[4.9 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold


Ainsley, William
Griffitha, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hannan, William
Owen, Will


Barnett, Guy
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.>
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John


Beaney, Alan
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Parkin, B. T.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pavitt, Laurence


Benson, Sir George
Hilton, A. v.
Peart, Frederick


Blackburn, F.
Holt, Arthur
Pentland, Norman


Blyton, William
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, James H.
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, A. E.
Rhodes, H.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Collick, Percy
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Darling, George
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, Dr. Horace
Small, William


Deer, George
Lawson, George
Sorensen, R. W.


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sprigga, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Steele, Thomas


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Donnelly, Desmond
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, William


Driberg, Tom
McCann, John
Swingler, Stephen


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MacColl, James
Taverne, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mcinnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, Albert
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wade, Donald


Finch, Harold
Manuel, Archie
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marsh, Richard
Willey, Frederick


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Ga pern, Sir Myer
Meillsh, R. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Hurton)


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Bruce
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchison, G. R.
Woof, Robert


Gower, Raymond
Monslow, Walter
Yatea, Victor (Ladywood)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moody, A. S.
Zitliacus, K.


Grey, Charles
Morgan, William




Mulley, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Miss He.bison and Mr. Lubbock.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barlow, Sir John
Berkeley, Humphry


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Barter, John
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Arbuthnot, John
Batsford, Brian
Biffen, John


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bell, Ronald
Blggs-Davison, John


Balniel, Lord
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bishop, F. P.


Barber, Anthony
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Bossom, Hon. Clie




Box, Donald
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Braine, Bernard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Brewis, John
Hobson, Sir John
Peel, John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hocking, Philip N.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Brooman-White, R.
Holland, Philip
Pitt, Dame Edith


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hollingworth, John
Pott, Percivall


Bryan, Paul
Hopkins, Alan
Price, David (Easlleigh)


Buck, Antony
Hornby, R. P.
Prior, J. M. L.


Buliard, Denys
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bulius, Wing Commander Eric
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Burden, F. A.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pym, Francis


Camphell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carr, Ccmpton (Barons Court)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Chataway, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees, Hugh


Chichester-Clark, R.
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Porthmth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cleaver, Leonard
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cole, Norman
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Costain, A, P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Roblnson, Rt. Hon. SirR.(B'pool, S).


Coulsdon, Michael
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Russell, Ronald


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Sperthorne)
Kimball, Marcus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crawley, Aldan
Kirk, Peter
Seymour, Leslie


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Lagden, Godfrey
Sharples, Richard


Cunningham, Knox
Leavey, J. A.
Shaw, M.


Curran, Charles
Leburn, Gilmour
Shepherd, William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Doughty, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Stodart, J. A.


du Cann, Edward
Longbottom, Charles
Storey, Sir Samuel


Duncan, Sir James
Loveys, Walter H.
Studhoime, Sir Henry


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elllott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaren, Martin
Teeling, Sir William


Farr, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Temple, John M.


Fell, Anthony
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Finlay, Graeme
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tllney, John (Wavertree)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maginnis, John E.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Freeth, Denzil
Maitland, Sir John
Turner, Colin


Gibson-Watt, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gllmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)
Marshall, Douglas
Vane, W. M. F.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Nell
Vickers, Miss Joan


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walder, David


Green, Alan
Mills, stratton
Webster, David


Gresham Cooke, R.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
Whitelaw, William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morrison, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woodhouse, C. M.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd]
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Woodnutt, Mark


Hastings, Stephen
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard



Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel]
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hendry, Forbes
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Mr. Mawby and



Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Bourne-Artor.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

4.8 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 13, page 9, line 33, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Christopher Soames.
The purpose of this Motion is to permit the Committee to deal with an extension to the list of items which can be seized and on which we would wish to be able to pay compensation. Hence, money is involved and it is necessary to recommit the Bill. I suggest that while we are in Committee we should take the Amendment to Clause 10, page 8, line 12, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 10, page 8, line 12, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Turton".—[Mr. Turton.]

and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 10.—(WINTER KEEP GRANTS.)

4.20 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out lines 12 to 15 and to add:
situated in an area consisting predominantly of mountains, hills, or heath, being land which is, or by improvement could be made, suitable for use for the breeding, rearing and maintenance of sheep or cattle but not to any material extent for the production of crops in quantity materially greater than that necessary to feed the number of sheep or cattle capable of being maintained on that land".
The Amendment is designed to alter the definition of "winter keep grants". There was a considerable discussion of this matter in the previous Committee stage and the subject was left there. We

tried to seek a better definition between then and Report, but, so far, nothing on those lines has been forthcoming. I have, therefore, made my own attempt to do that and I submit to the Committee that the definition in the Amendment would improve the Bill.
The object of the winter keep grant, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, is to give an alternative to the ploughing grant in upland areas. When we discussed this in Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
The purpose of the winter keep proposal…is to help the farmers who, from the natural conditions and circumstances of their farms, have had difficulty in providing winter keep for their livestock, and who have found that the lack of winter keep is a limiting factor in making the best use of their farms and in running the largest number of livestock they can."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee E, 11th December, 1962; c. 171.]
Clearly, this is an important Clause, the proposal of the Minister is most desirable and we should all be anxious to see that it works effectively, and particularly fairly in upland areas.
I appreciate that the Minister has chosen the existing definition because it is administratively convenient to use a definition which his officials already know. However, I hone that my remarks will persuade him that what may well have been the correct definition for the purposes of the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, is an incorrect one for the purposes of the Bill before us. I am convinced that it is necessary to have a definition of some sort, so we can remove the possibility of not having one out of our consideration. It is also better that we should have a proper definition than merely to leave it as a matter of discretion, for it would be too great a burden on the officials concerned if they were not provided with guidance about which farms should be selected.
If hon. Members compare the Amendment with the definition in the Livestock Rearing Act they will see that I and my hon. Friends have selected all that part of the Act which deals with the geographical area of the land and what is produced on the arable land. We have cut out the destination of the livestock on that upland land and I suggest that this is the correct attitude to adopt towards this question of winter keep.
It is not a case where one is dealing with a farmer who wants to put up buildings, or who wants to make improvements for a farming venture. We are dealing with the case of a man who, by the nature of his farming, is unable now to provide the necessary winter keep for his livestock. Whether or not the livestock may be sold as store cattle or store sheep or may, if he is a more enlightened farmer, be finished off as fat and come as early beef to the market, is, I submit, immaterial. Equally, if the upland farmer sells milk, while that is a material factor for his buildings, it is quite an immaterial one for the purposes of winter keep.
We have moved some way in these upland areas since 1951. A great many of these farmers have diversified their farms and, therefore, if one is using the definition of 1951 now one will find that there will be a curious inequality of treatment among certain areas. As my right hon. Friend knows, there is in my constituency this type of upland area. I find one farm which is still raising stores while the next, probably at the end of his road, has two or three churns if he is selling milk as well as raising stores.
This farmer has gone to great expense to bring his byre up to the T.T. standards. He has been selected by the Ministry's officials as having a suitable farm for combining store raising with the selling of milk of high quality. In the third farm I will find a man who is probably using new methods to get his calves to market early, perhaps at 15 months, and so to get early and mature beef.
Surely it is wrong, considering the activities of these three farmers, who all have the same problem of providing winter keep for their cattle—and the same argument can be applied to sheep—to say that the first should be allowed to have the winter keep grant and can have the choice between having a ploughing grant and a winter keep grant, while the other two farms cannot. That is the real heart of the Amendment and, I suggest, the definition as drafted by the Minister in the Bill is not suitable.
It is interesting to note the words of Lord Williams of Barnburgh when introducing the Second Reading of the Livestock Rearing Bill in December, 1950. He recognised this problem of diversity on the upland farms and he drafted that

Bill, he thought, to allow for that difficulty. He said:
I ought to say that the production of milk and milk products, such as butter, cheese or cream, on a farm devoted mainly to stock rearing, or which could properly be so used, will not disqualify it for assistance it the suggested improvements are for stock-rearing purposes. Much the same will apply to farms producing pigs, poultry or seed potatoes as a subsidiary part of the farming business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th Dec., 1950; Vol. 482, c. 828.]
That was the line taken by the then Minister of Agriculture when the Livestock Rearing Bill was going through the House.

4.30 p.m.

I hope that the Minister will see the difficulty of using this definition in this curious legislation by reference. Under the Livestock Rearing Act, one can take one improvement and say, "Yes, we can allow this, because it is for the livestock rearing part of the man's business and not for his milk, cream or butter production, but we cannot do it when we come to winter keep". Therefore, if the Minister keeps the Bill as it is, we will have the anomalous position that a man who may have a grant under the livestock rearing provisions for the store-raising part of his business will be disqualified from getting the winter-keep grant because a substantial part of his activities is directed to milk production. In my constituency, and in others in my part of the country, there are a number of farmers who have been able to get livestock-rearing grants or hill-farming grants are in milk production because the grant was directed to that part of their operations.

I hope that I have said enough to make the Minister realise that this is an important point. I do not, of course, say that my draft is the right way of overcoming the difficulty. I have based that on the Livestock Rearing Act definition, as I thought that would be a watertight definition. There must always be borderline cases but, if we are to surmount this problem, we must look at the geographical area, the upland area, with very poor grass and see what use the farmer makes of his arable land. Quite clearly, if he is selling the produce of his arable land, he is not in need of the winter feed grant, because he is in surplus production for keep, but we do want to help the other man who is in deficit.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that it is rather difficult to say which wording would guarantee all that the Amendment seeks, but everyone will be inclined to argue the point according to some special circumstances in his own area. In my area, I have circumstances that are, in a way, unique. The Slamannan Plateau is in the middle of an industrial area. It is not high enough to be considered mountainous, or fertile enough to be considered a good arable or cattle-raising area, or even a good milk-producing area yet, in the middle of it, farmers try to make a living, and if it is to remain populated they must get a living.
Circumstances change from time to time. Sometimes that living can be got by more milk production, sometimes by the production of more beef, and sometimes, perhaps, by different use of the arable land. I take it that, to some extent, the Bill's provisions will replace the M.A.P. grants to maintain such farms in existence, but if milk is barred altogether it may make just the difference between those farms being cultivated, or the farmers packing up altogether, as I have heard them suggest they would.
That would be a tragedy for such an area, and I should like to know whether the original Clause does not provide sufficient flexibility to give grants where they are necessary and desirable to maintain farms in existence without necessarily maintaining something so uneconomic that it should go out of business. I understand that the Government are now blowing a very cold wind on uneconomic farms, and that that breeze may eventually blow some of them out of existence. That may be so in some areas, but as I believe that not to be the intention here I want to be sure that the Bill is sufficiently flexible for its purpose.
There is a tendency nowadays to breed double-purpose animals—milk cows being used as the mothers of calves that can be used for beef, so getting an income of a double kind. Would that still be permissible under this provision? That practice is developing more and more, and as science proceeds I think that it will become prevalent in some areas. I want to be sure that this provision will not wipe out some farmers merely because of involvement in technical words.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I was interested in the reference made by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) to what he described as the Slamannan Plateau, which, I can quite understand, may well be affected by one of the new Clauses on the Notice Paper. The right hon. Gentleman is, I am sure, well acquainted with the initials M.A.P., which denote one of the considerably valuable subsidies or grants given to Scottish farmers. That scheme did not cost very much—seldom more than El million out of £40 million—but it probably yielded more dividends than almost any other scheme. The problem is that there are some farmers, perhaps not many, who were benefiting under M.A.P., but were not qualified to receive the livestock rearing subsidy.
The Committee's aim has been to try to allow payment of the new winter-keep grant to those who were outside the livestock-rearing areas, and not to confine the new winter-keep scheme rigidly to those qualified for livestock-rearing grant. I do not think that in the Standing Committee we failed to do that because the Government were unsympathetic to us, but more, and I recognise it completely, because of the difficulty of finding a suitable definition of the land involved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) mentioned that my right hon. Friend the Minister at one stage described the winter-keep scheme as providing, as one of its objectives, an alternative to the ploughing grant. Let us face up to the fact that if the ploughing grant is to be reduced, as rumour has it—and I think that there is very strong foundation for thinking this—the sort of fanners to whom the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire referred, who are outside the livestock-rearing scheme, will have their ploughing grant reduced but will not be eligible for the winter-keep scheme. The alternative does not exist in that case.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland told the Standing Committee that the one thing the Government did not want to do was to encourage crop production in areas that were best suited for the production of livestock, but I think that, whatever the Government's intentions are, that is precisely what this kind of action will do because, if the ploughing grant is reduced,


even if it is worth only £100 or £200 in a year, it is most likely that people will try to make up the deficit by going in for something like crop production.
My hope, however, is that there is a slight escape route for us through the words in the original Clause. These are the four valuable words "to any material extent". I hope that a liberal interpretation of these words will possibly permit winter-keep grant to be received at least on some farms which do not receive the livestock area grant.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I hope that the Minister will answer the last question posed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), that is to say, that he will say whether the words which the hon. Member quoted could be administratively used to extend to these farmers who are marginal in a rather special sense the advantages of this small but very useful grant. If the Minister were to say so now I would deprive the Committee of the advantage of my few words. If he does not rise, I shall continue to speak.
I hope that the Minister will accept the point made by his hon. Friend, because I think that in the Clause there is a certain latitude which might enable the Ministry to meet the point which was so very well put by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). This is once more a question of definition. Some of us remember that when the Livestock Rearing Act passed through the House in 1951 the definition then applied and adopted seemed most apposite to the purpose of that Bill. But we also remember that when the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, was before the House the same definition was used in its provisions, and very soon county committees and county councils ran into trouble for the same reason—that one farm was assisted under the definition and its next door neighbour was somewhat arbitrarily deprived of the provisions of that Measure.
Similarly, in connection with this Clause, I am sure that the kind of case adduced by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and other hon. Members will come up and will tend to make the administration of this new and very useful provision more and more difficult. I suggest that unless the words

are accepted in the sense that the Minister is asked to accept them, the definition proposed in the Amendment should be further considered by the right hon. Gentleman with a view to there being framed a specific definition of area and qualification for this purpose.
It is high time that we left behind us the hold-all definition which in the 1951 Act applies to this general kind of farm. It is a kind of unit which within it contains very different types of farms and which, as has already been said, is continually changing. There is increasing diversification with dual purpose cattle in North-West Wales and one is glad to see this happen. It is the only way to farm that kind of land, and the only way to help this kind of farmer is to see that administratively these grants can be applied to varying conditions and circumstances.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I welcome this grant because it gives great help to farmers in Scotland where over 70 per cent. of the land is of rough grazing capacity as opposed to only about 15 per cent. in England and Wales. As the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said, it is most important to keep this hill land in production. I notice that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was speaking in the Standing Committee he said that we should have regard to the natural conditions and the circumstances of the land. I am sure that is how we should look at giving grants for this sort of land. We should look at what fundamentally the land is capable of producing.
I have noticed quite often that a farm which has been badly farmed seems to receive grants under the Livestock Rearing Act whereas a well-farmed farm may fail to receive them. There are other anomalies. Where a farm is in the occupation of a farmer who also has a farm on low ground, that farm is often excluded. What we should look at is the marginality of the land rather than the type of farmer and the type of farming. I come from an area which is traditionally given over to dairying and where a few dairy farms have been in receipt of M.A.P. grant up till now. Under the definition in the Bill, I understand that they will be automatically excluded.
I do not think that this is the way we should go about reducing the flow of milk. We should be stopping people having dairies on land on which cattle can be fattened, such as in Cheshire and East Anglia, and not trying to drive out of production farmers who own the size and type of farm which cannot carry on any other economic activity. Many of these farms have buildings adapted only for dairying. The farmers have been encouraged to make their premises as efficient as possible and to install storage tanks and dairy equipment. All of this is quite useless for stock-rearing, but they have exactly the same problem of winter keep. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will consider whether he can accept the Amendment.

Mr. John MacLeod: I should like to support the Amendment. A case has been made out for widening the definition of livestock rearing areas and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) that there must be some definition and demarcation. These grants are of enormous benefit to my part of Scotland.
The question has been raised of the possibility of the ploughing grant being reduced or withdrawn. In that event I wonder how many farmers who are now receiving the M.A.P. grants and who will need the new winter keep grant will not be receiving it. There will be borderline cases, and if the ploughing grant is now to be withdrawn from these people they may be in very difficult straits. We want to see more flexibility, but I appreciate the difficulty of going round and defining who shall receive these grants.
I should like to take up the point about the small dairy farmers. There is no doubt that one of the main objects of this is to try to drive out the small uneconomic dairy farmer from land on which he could really be producing livestock. But we do not want to see this carried too far. It has already been carried too far in my own area, in the Highlands of Scotland, where we have the Milk Marketing Board going miles out delivering bottles of milk at great expense to itself. It should be possible, I would think, for farmers in some of these areas to produce, as the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mallon said, the

two or three churns of milk which they could sell in their own area to the great advantage of everyone in the area.
I should lake to see that happen because it is very important, particularly in my area where depopulation is going on steadily, that we should, if at all possible, keep people on the land there. That is why I welcome this winter-keep scheme and I hope that it is going to take the place of—we do not yet know what the grants are to be—and ultimately be a big improvement on M.A.P. For these reasons, I should like to see a little more flexibility.

Mr. James H. Hoy: We discussed this matter at considerable length in Committee, and I think that what perturbed many of us was that if M.A.P. and the ploughing grant were to go there might be a certain number of farmers in the country who would fall between the two and who, in the process, would get nothing at all. It is extremely important that people who farm in these parts should be maintained and, if possible, given some sort of security.
We are indebted to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) for putting down this Amendment, because at one time it was thought that officers of the right hon. Gentleman's Department might be the best people to decide whether or not a particular farm qualified for this grant. Many of us in the Committee rejected this proposal for two reasons. In the first place, we thought that it was placing too great a responsibility on the inspectors of the Department to have to decide whether or not certain farms qualified for grant. Secondly, we thought that if, in fact, there was no guidance, and therefore no limitation, abuse might take place. I think that every hon. Member in the Committee was in favour of action being taken to provide these winter keep grants for those farmers who had in the past enjoyed other facilities.
I am bound to say that we are a little disappointed to find that the Minister did not put down an Amendment on today's Notice Paper to cover the promise then made. During the Committee stage the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that if the Amendment which was then before the Committee were withdrawn he would undertake, along with his right hon. Friend, to find some


words which would cover the proposals that the Committee had in mind. Unfortunately, he has been unable to do so, and so the right hon. Gentleman has provided words for us to cover the point, and very skilfully, I think, because I notice that he has taken the words, exactly, from Section 1 (3) of the 1951 Livestock Rearing Act.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am one of those people who have been most anxious about this subject, but I think that I should only be doing my hon. Friend justice if I pointed out that what he in fact said was that he would do his best to find words, not that he would find them.

Mr. Hoy: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention because that is exactly what I said, that the hon. Gentleman said that if the Amendment were withdrawn he, along with his right hon. Friend, would do his best to find a suitable form of words to put on the Notice Paper at this stage. I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of going back on his pledge; I am saying only that I am a little surprised that he did not find the appropriate form of words. That is as far as I am taking the matter. As I have said, I notice with approval that the right hon. Gentleman, quite skilfully, has taken words out of the 1951 Act and incorporated them in his Amendment.
There is no doubt that the words which will carry some weight are
but not to any material extent".
These are the important words and I think they will meet with the Minister's approval, but whether they will go the whole way to meet the express wishes of the Committee, I do not know. Quite frankly, we have no objection to the words on the Notice Paper, but if we are to agree to the Amendment being withdrawn or rejected, then, at the very least, we must have an assurance from the Minister that the words which I have quoted mean exactly what they say.

Mr. Soames: This, if I may say so, has been a case which has been exceedingly well put by every hon. Member who has spoken, beginning with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) who moved the Amendment. I think that the Committee will agree that it is almost inevitable

when we are talking in terms of grants being given not to agriculture as a whole but to specific sections of the agricultural industry that there should be those who in the interests of their own constituents feel that they would like to see the scheme enlarged somewhat to include a further section of the industry. Where-ever one draws the line it is almost inevitable that there should be a body of opinion which would like to see it extended. When one is talking in terms of hill farming and hill land I think this is bound to be so. It would certainly be so if one were thinking, for instance, in terms of contours.
During the Committee stage my hon. Friend undertook to look again at the definition of elegibility for winter keep grants to see if it might be possible in the revised definition to meet the points made by right hon. and hon. Members in Committee upstairs. We have not, in fact, been able to find a better definition of the kind of farms which we believe need this special assistance, and my hon. Friend, as he promised, informed right hon. and hon. Members who put this point to him in Committee of this decision.
I should like to explain to the Committee what our thoughts have been. Briefly, if we are to avoid innumerable anomalies, there must, I think everyone would agree, be a definition. Secondly, I think it will be agreed that the present definition of hill land has operated for a long time. It is well understood by all concerned—I think it is well understood by those farming in these areas—and we must ask ourselves whether there would be any clear advantages in changing it. I hope, in particular, that my right hon. Friend will appreciate why we cannot accept the Amendment. It would necessitate materially altering the present meaning of hill land and the enterprises thereon. The definition which he proposes would mean that better farms in the hill areas which were not themselves hill farms in the sense we mean when we speak of the hill farms would become equally eligible along with the poorer places for this special help.
It is designed to be a special help. Our policy, for many years, has been to confine help of this kind to the hill farms. That is not to say that there is no help given to other types of agriculture—we


know that there is—but this help is designed to give a specific type of assistance to hill farms over and above whatever may be got from the generality of help, as it were, which is open to all farms in what the Government give to agriculture. We do this both because, inherently, these hill farms are relatively poor and harder to work and because, unlike the dairy farms, feeding farms and cropping farms, these farms receive little direct benefit from the price guarantees inasmuch as very little of what they produce is sold under a guaranteed price through the 1957 Act machinery.
This does not mean that a hill farmer who sells some milk, fattens a few cattle or sheep or sells a small quantity of crops should be, or will be, ruled out of the scheme. I take my right hon. Friend's point about the farmer who sells two or three chums of milk. If he is principally a livestock rearing farmer and this is what he does, it will not, I assure the Committee, rule him out of the benefit.
5.0 p.m.
This brings me to the core of the matter. As the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) said, it is a question of definition. How are we to define it? I think that we are right in sticking to the hill farms and the broad definition of them which we know, but how are we to use the definition? This is the question. It was a widely held view in Committee, and the same view has been expressed today, that there should be a reasonable amount of flexibility in applying the definition. What we have been considering is whether we can find a form of words which would apply the flexibility more effectively than does the existing definition under which a farm is ruled out if dairying or fattening is carried out to a material extent.
I assure the Committee that the existing definition is, and will be, applied by our field officers as reasonably as they possibly can. There will be no rigid application of an arithmetical formula. Each case will be considered on its merits. Our officers will estimate within broad limits the proportion of the farmer's return which could be expected from the different enterprises carried on on his farm. There is no absolute maximum laid down. Normally, we should approve any case in

which the return from milk, fat stock and crops was not more than, say, 40 per cent. of the total. In certain circumstances, we might find that, on a particular farm, an even higher proportion was justified, but it must be principally a hill farm within the context we all know. Naturally, if it were to be a high proportion, there would have to be very good reason for it and we should have to consider the matter.
Most hill farmers secure their return predominantly if not entirely, from livestock rearing. These are the sort of farms we are endeavouring to help by the specific provision which we have put in to assist hill farmers.
I cannot, in answer to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), give instances of particular farms, but I hope that I have reassured the Committee by giving my idea of how we should interpret this definition. First, we feel that the definition is one to which we should adhere. Second, we feel that the approach to the interpretation of it which I have indicated is the right one. If anyone feels that there has been a miscarriage of justice, he can, of course, go all the way with his appeal which ultimately comes to Ministers.
I think that this is the right approach, and I hope that what I have said will reassure hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken. I say that particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton who, as I have said, put the case extremely well. I know that it is there; it is there for all to hear. I hope that I have managed to reassure my right hon. Friend that what we propose is not unreasonable and that he will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: The Minister has replied as regards flexibility. I could not expect him to answer about a particular set of farms. He has not, however, made clear that the flexibility will be used in such a way as to give a commonsense interpretation in respect of the preservation of milk production on those farms where it should be preserved. The whole emphasis is on the production of beef and livestock. That is the general principle. But there are some places in the Highlands where milk is not being produced although it should be. Has the


right hon. Gentleman any power to impose upon such farms the need to produce milk? I was in a dairy in Fort William once, a dairy owned by the provost of the town, which bought its milk from Edinburgh, 166 miles away. In the area for which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) speaks there are islands which take their milk from the mainland so that it all has to be shipped to them.
From an agricultural point of view, this is all nonsense. When I was Secretary of State, we tried to establish a farm in order to create a precedent. Unfortunately, owing to the legalities of the Crofters Act, the Secretary of State was turned down by the courts, and this was not possible. It would be commonsense to have milk produced on some of these farms, and I should like to see the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Government using their powers to bring commonsense into the balance of agriculture in these places.
I can understand that the definition is not there to determine which farms will receive grants. It is there to give the Secretary of State a weapon to refuse grants to certain farms. What he wants is such a definition that he can refuse grant to farms which should not have it. However, I hope that the flexibility will be such that the interpretation and application of the Clause as a whole will bring a commonsense balance on to these farms. If a farm is one which ought to produce livestock entirely, well and good. The Minister has the power. However, hope that people will not go according to the letter of the law and refuse grant to some place which ought to be a viable farm producing both milk and livestock. I agree that the balance must be struck, but I hope that the 40 per cent. will not become the law of the Medes and Persians and tie the hands of the Department's officers.
From experience, I know that I can give the Secretary of State flexibility and discretion, but I want that discretion to be used properly in the best interests of agriculture, within the context of the need to maintain the population in the upland areas and ensure that they produce a proper balance of foodstuffs, meat or milk. I hope that any exclusions will not be so rigid as to bring some farms into vacancy simply because of a techni-

cality in the definition. With these qualifications, I am prepared to accept the Minister's reply.

Mr. G. Roberts: I should like to say a few words before the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) says what I think he will say.
The Committee and the Minister must always remember that these grants take the place of M.A.P. grants. They are not over and above other assistance to this class of farmer.
I personally appreciate the attitude which the Minister has taken to our pleas. He has spoken into the record very generously and, if I may so put it, with enlightened lack of caution. He has given, not precisely instructions, but a measure of encouragement to his staff to approach this problem of administration in the most helpful manner possible. He has even thrown out certain notional percentages which, while not binding, will help those who have to administer the grant. We thank him for what he has said and hope that this very useful but not very large grant will serve the purposes which my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) so eloquently described.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend's intervention was most helpful. His interpretation of the definition has, I think, removed all our doubts. After all, he and his officials will be interpreting the Bill when it becomes an Act. If the definition is interpreted in the way that he has indicated, I am sure that we shall be satisfied. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(SEIZURE OF CARCASES, ETC. LIABLE TO SPREAD DISEASE.)

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 9, tine 33, to leave out "or"

The Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment that in page 9, line 33, after "eggs" to insert "or fertilisers".

Mr. Soames: When this Clause was before the Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard)


tabled an Amendment to add both fertilisers and feedingstuffs to the scope of the Clause. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was able to assure the Committee that that part of the Amendment referring to feedingstuffs was covered by the word "fodder" in the Clause. He promised to look further into the arguments for taking powers to seize fertilisers if necessary.
As was said at the time by my hon. Friend, these additional powers have not previously been necessary we have not felt the need for them. On the other hand, on reading what was said during the debate in Committee, I could not help feeling that our disease control measures called for every possible vigilance. Certainly it is better to be safe than sorry. I do not see what we can lose by adding fertilisers to the list, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend. If we were to have to seize them for the purpose of disease control, we should want to pay appropriate compensation for them as we should for anything else which had to be seized for the same reason.
That is why I have tabled the Amendments on recommittal. I acknowledge the interest shown by hon. Members concerned with this Clause in their desire to see our precautions strengthened in this way. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Peart: We on this side agree with the Minister. This point was ventilated in Committee. We are all anxious that the control should be effective, and the addition of fertilisers and feedingstuffs to the list will probably close a gap. We should err on the side of certainty. We should support any proposal which improved disease control by the seizure of carcases which spread disease. I think that the Minister has made his case for the Amendment, and I see no reason why anyone should make a long speech on it.

Mr. Turton: I thank my right hon. Friend for this concession. Those who sell fertilisers and who have examined the Bill were worried about the omission of the word "fertilisers". My right hon. Friend has taken a very wise and helpful action in acceding to the request which we made in Committee.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: Fertilisers include many things, such as some city refuse

which is ground into fertilisers. This often contains glass. If there were an undue proportion of glass fragments in the refuse which did damage to cattle, would that be considered as a disease?

Mr. Soames: That is not the purpose. This has nothing to do with whether the feedingstuffs or fertilisers have damaged cattle. If it is necessary forcibly to seize fodder or straw, for instance, which has been on a farm where there has been a disease and to destroy it in order to comply with the regulations, compensation will be payable. This has nothing to do with glass.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should like my right hon. Friend to confirm one point. These Amendments give him power to seize fertilisers under certain conditions. Do they give him power to pay compensation for the fertilisers so seized?

Mr. Soames: Yes; that is the purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 33, after "eggs", insert "or fertilisers".—[Mr. Soames]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(SEED POTATOES.)

(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to the particulars to be stated under section 1 of the Seeds Act 1920 by persons selling or exposing for sale any seed potatoes and with respect to the containers in which seed potatoes are to be delivered to a purchaser.

(2) So much of that section as relates to the time at which any statement is to be delivered to a purchaser, and the manner in which it may be delivered, shall not apply; but regulations under that Act may provide for the time at which any statement containing all or any of the said particulars is to be delivered., and may require such a statement

(a) to be in a form prescribed by the regulations;
(b) to be delivered to the purchaser in such manner as may be so prescribed;
(c) instead of or as well as being delivered in any other manner, to be delivered by being enclosed with the potatoes in their bags or other containers or by being marked on or attached to those bags or containers in such manner as may be so prescribed, or by being both so enclosed and so marked or attached;



and any such regulations may exclude any of the said particulars from those to be contained in a statement displayed under subsection (2) of that section with seed potatoes exposed for sale.

(3) Regulations under the said Act may prohibit, subject to any exceptions provided for by or under the regulations, the delivery to a purchaser of any seed potatoes otherwise than in such bags or other containers as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(4) In subsection (3) of the said section 1 the words "or seed potatoes, as the case may be" are hereby repealed.

(5) This section shall not come into operation until such day as the Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause meets an undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in Committee. He asked us to add to the Seeds Act a provision whereby statements identifying the farm of origin would be inserted in all containers of seed potatoes. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary accepted this proposal in principle and undertook to table a suitable new Clause at a later stage which might conveniently cover somewhat wider ground than the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West.
This is an enabling Clause. It empowers Ministers to make regulations laying down the particulars to be given on a statement or statements, the time and the manner in which such statement or statements shall be delivered to the purchasers, and the kind of containers in which seed potatoes may be delivered to the purchasers.
There are three main points which I may briefly explain. First, this is a general enabling provision which will make it possible for Ministers to require, if necessary, that the statement accompanying a container of seed potatoes shall contain, not only an identification of the farm of origin, but such other particulars about the potatoes as it may be reasonable and desirable for a purchaser to have.
Secondly, the form of the Clause has been shaped, to some extent, by the fact that the Seeds Act as it stands permits a statement under the Act containing

prescribed particulars to be delivered to a purchaser within seven days of sale or delivery, and also allows a statement to be attached or put in a package or container at the option of the seller.
Clearly, a requirement to place labels on the containers of seed potatoes conflicts with these provisions. Therefore, subsection (2) of the new Clause enables Ministers to prescribe the times at which different kinds of statements may be delivered to purchasers of seed potatoes and removes the existing option to sellers whether to send such statements with the potatoes.
Subsection (3) enables Ministers to prescribe the kind of containers in which potatoes may be delivered. This follows a recommendation of the Committee on Transactions in Seeds. That Committee strongly recommended that all certified seed potatoes should be delivered in new bags or their equivalent. It regarded this as an essential part of the machinery for providing the purchaser with healthy, pure seed. It regarded it primarily as a further security against potato diseases and infection. The Clause also enables Ministers, when necessary, in special cases, to make exceptions to any general rules which are written into the regulations.
There are two assurances which I should, perhaps, give to the House. First, as regards the contents of any regulations which may be made, the Seeds Act provides that there must be consultation with the representatives of the interests concerned before regulations are made. We will certainly ensure that the organisations concerned have every opportunity to give their views, particularly about the practical considerations of the operation, before regulations are made.
Secondly, I assure hon. Members and, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, who raised the matter in Committee, that we will go ahead as fast as we reasonably can in making regulations. It is hoped that we may be able to make the arrangements in time for them to be operative for the 1963 crop. I hope that the new Clause will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Peart: The Minister has fulfilled a promise which he made in Standing Committee and I congratulate the hon Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) upon making the proposal


which initiated this action. We feel that the new Clause is necessary and I am glad that assurances have been given, including the assurance that there will be consultation with all sections of the industry. As was explained in Standing Committee, the farmers' unions, the seed potato trade in Scotland and the merchants in England, as well as the Potato Marketing Board, welcomed a new approach and the labelling of seed potatoes. The Minister has gone further and dealt also with containers, as he said he would on 5th February.
Obviously, before a new Clause of this nature is introduced, there should be consultations. I should like to know whether those consultations with the trade and with farming organisations have taken place since the Committee stage, although I recognise that the time interval has been short.
I hope that the Minister will not delay the making of the regulations. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has promised that speed will be the Ministry's watchword. It has not always been so. There have been cases when, despite Government promises that regulations would be issued with haste, we have had a rather dilatory attitude. We hope that speed will be the order of the day.
Mention has been made of the Seeds Act. I recognise that there have to be alterations in it and, generally, I approve of what the Minister has done. I hope that both sides of the House will welcome the Minister's assurance and the extension of the proposals contained in the earlier new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West.

Mr. Stodart: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, not only for taking up the Clause which I moved in Standing Committee, but for improving it a good deal. The object of the whole exercise derives from the fact that 60 per cent. of all seed potatoes in the United Kingdom are certified and, therefore, healthy and that 400,000 tons of them come from north of the Border, therefore outnumbering the English and the Northern Irish supply by over three to one—

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member will, I hone, accept that this is a matter of

importance even for the people concerned in England. I recognise that the English figure is approximately 25,000 tons only; it is considerably smaller than the Scottish figure. Nevertheless, the trade generally will benefit.

Mr. Stodart: Yes, of course, but this arrangement will be of much greater importance to the country North of the Border, where the trade is worth about £10 million a year, which is a fairly big slice of our agricultural production. In a trade of that magnitude, it is essential that buyers should have complete confidence in what they get—that is the main objective—because confidence can be so easily undermined by carelessness, to use the politest possible word, on the part of a tiny minority.
It is true that the bulk of deliveries of Scottish seed—this probably applies to English-produced seed also—goes direct from one farm to another on an individual load and, therefore, in such cases, the loss of identity does not arise. In addition to inspiring confidence among buyers, however, the new proposals will be of benefit to growers. I have with me a label which is already being put into one in every three bags of certain seed potatoes in Scotland, and which includes on it the slightly tendentious remark:
Ross-shire, source of the healthiest seed potatoes.
I am not sure that I entirely subscribe to that; but at least, it is a good advertisement for a great seed potato producing area.
These new proposals will not, of course, be foolproof. If anyone is determined to evade them, it will not be impossible to do so. Suppose, for example, that a consignment arrives on an English farm after the regulations are in force and no labels are found inside the bag. It would be quite possible for the consignor to say that he had included the labels and that he could call evidence to prove it. Merely to insert a label and to sew up the bag with string leaves scope for the driving of a small horse and cart through the regulations. [An HON. MEMBER: "A pony and cart."] A tiny one, at least.
I wonder whther my hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether, the label having been inserted, a metallic seal should be used bearing the code number


of the farm, rather like the type of seal that is used by the Department of Agriculture for its stock seed inspection. The fact that the seal had not been tampered with would be proof that a label had been put in.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: Farmers in my constituency use, Scottish seed potatoes. I myself use them and I offer my thanks to my right hon. Friends for this Clause. I want to make an observation about subsection (3), however. This deals with the prescription by the Minister of the type of container used for seed potatoes. We have been told that it is proposed to prohibit all but new bags for the transport of seed potatoes.
I hope that when the Minister consults the interests concerned, he will make sure that he is quite right on this point, because, although there is danger of disease such as eel worm in re-using old bags—and one naturally wants to eliminate every chance of disease occurring—there are certain advantages.
Potatoes coming from Scotland to England are either in new bags which are not returnable and therefore are apt to be pretty thin, or in returnable bags which are much thicker and give much greater protection from damage. I hope that, in prescribing that returnable bags shall not be used for seed potatoes, the Minister will not overlook the damage factor because, from long experience, I know what mechanical damage can do to seed potatoes in transit. It is by far the greatest difficulty the user of seed potatoes has to contend with. In trying to combat disease, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not overlook the fact that this damage may occur if he insists on only non-returnable, thin bags being used.

Mr. John Mackie: I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for not being here when he moved the Second Reading of the Clause. I want to underline the point made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) about the thickness of sacks used for shifting seed potatoes. To use new bags every time is very expensive, and I suggest that we should try some system of disinfecting sacks before they are sent back to Scotland for use again. These regula-

tions should not be made too difficult to carry out. Nor should too many different ways of doing this be allowed.
I am in favour of the system suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), which would involve putting a label inside the sack. It should, of course, be a waterproof label and should not be merely tied on, for if there were any "fiddling" or rain the number on such a flimsy label would be wiped out. I suggest that we use a label with a number stamped on it.
I do not suggest that a farmer's name and address should be stamped on the label, for that would be a retrograde step and unnecessary. If every sack had a number on it, there would be no difficulty. In any case, I suppose that 90 per cent. of the seed potatoes go through a merchant, and he has a number which can be traced if necessary. This system should be simplified as much as possible.

Sir John Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friends for introducing what I think will be most useful regulations, particularly for those who, like myself, live in Lincolnshire, which produces certainly the best as well as the most potatoes in England. There is urgency in this matter. The last part of the new Clause says—quite obviously—
This section shall not come into operation until such day as the Ministers may by order … appoint
I want to be assured that we may have this in operation by next season.

Mr. Hoy: This is an interesting discussion. I delivered a forceful oration on this matter in Committee. I would not express all the doubts which hon. Members opposite have expressed about seed potato merchants. The grave doubt which they have about the credibility and honesty of these merchants is amazing.
I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that if these potatoes are to be delivered to the South at least the recipient should know that he is getting what he has paid for. That is not asking too much. Indeed, a measure of this kind seeks to give protection to people who go for quality. To that extent, it will do the industry a fair amount of good. As I said in Committee, it may be that a certain number


of merchants allow bags to get burst and mix up first and third qualities. I am certain, however, that this is not common in the industry.
Every hon. Member has assumed that in this context canvas bags will be used. I will not argue that point, nor will I argue about the qualities of a new bag compared with an old one. I am not expert enough to do so. But can old bags not be treated after use? This should surely not present any great difficulty.
Having made up his mind to carry this through, the Minister should not delay. The sooner this provision comes into operation, the better it will be for all concerned. I am certain that the message of the House is to get ahead with the job, because this will be an improvement.

Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked about consultation. He quite rightly expressed the view that time had been short. We have not had formal consultations with the interests but we have informally told them what we propose to do. They were very much in support of labelling containers, as he knows. I understand that they also approve of the proposals concerning containers. There will, however, be full consultations before the regulations are drawn up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said that quite a number of people are already doing something on these lines in labelling, and he mentioned policing difficulties. One of the technical matters which will have to be considered very carefully with the interests is how far one can go in policing this without imposing too great a strain on those doing the job.
Other hon. Members have raised points which will be of considerable concern when we come to draw up the regulations. Notice will be taken of those comments when our discussions with the interests are held. We do not prescribe anything about new bags in this Clause. This was mentioned in Committee when we discussed the technical point about the sort of precautions which should be taken.
We have been urged to get ahead and we will do so as fast as we can. I repeat my assurance that we will do our best to get the regulations out in time for the 1963 crop.

Mr. E. G. Willis: When I came into the Chamber and heard the House discussing the Clause, 1 was amazed by the unanimity with which hon. Members opposite approved of this introduction of more regulations. I remember the rubbish which they used to talk about regulations in 1950, and yet here we have a Clause in which people are to be told what sort of sacks they are to use and which provides for regulations which will prescribe all sorts of things. We are to tie people right, left and centre, but hon. Members opposite apparently think that that is all in order.
I wonder at this sudden conversion. What a lot of hypocrites! What a lot of humbug they talk! What a lot of hypocrites when one recalls the things which they have said in the past!

Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in order in having come into the Chamber very recently and throwing accusations against hon. Members on this side of the House of being hypocrites?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): There is no question of order as regards having come into the Chamber recently. It would be out of order for an hon. Member to accuse a particular Member of being a hypocrite, but I have often heard hon. Members en masse being accused of being hypocritical, on both sides of the House.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Anybody with any experience of debates of this kind knows that it is quite correct. The term is not exaggerated. Although at times I am given to exaggeration, that is not the case on this occasion.
Another thing which interests me about the Clause is the great length to which Parliament has to go in order to protect people against the activities of private enterprise. That is what we are doing. Time after time we are confronted with long and involved Clauses—and this Clause is 27 lines long—to protect the


buyer against the activities of private enterprise. I hope that hon. Members opposite will note this when they go to their constituencies to extol the virtues of competitive private enterprise.

Sir J. Maitland: The trouble is that one cannot protect oneself against the activities of public enterprise.

Mr. Willis: One can do that in the House quite simply.

Mr. Burden: There is no need for the hon. Member to pursue this line, because the Leader of the Opposition made it perfectly clear in the House yesterday that if the party opposite were returned to power, it would go in for wholesale nationalisation.

Mr. Willis: I should be out of order if I followed that. What I am suggesting to hon. Members opposite is that when they go to their constituencies this weekend and extol the great blessings that private enterprise confers upon us they should also tell their constituents of the enormous lengths to which Parliament has to go to protect people from the activities of those who are engaged in this competitive, private, free enterprise. I do not know why it is called "free", because we spend the whole of our time cribbing, cabnning and confining it, but apparently that escapes the notice of hon. Members opposite.
I rose only to point that out. I am in favour of the Clause. I am always in favour of anything which protects people against the activities of private enterprise. That appeals to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. Against the activities of private enterprise. That is why I am on this side of the House. It is one of the things which led me to this side of the House.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: Does the hon. Member want to nationalise the seed potato industry?

Mr. Willis: I did not say anything about that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is beyond the scope of the Clause.

Mr. Willis: I am discussing a Clause which seeks to regulate, to control, to crib, cabin and confine the activities of people engaged in selling seed pototates.

Sir Richard Glyn (Dorset, North): The main point of the Clause of which the

hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) approved so strongly is to protect the English customer from the irregularities of the Scottish seed potato merchants.

Mr. Willis: I have never suggested that the Scottish private free enterpriser was any better than the Englisher private free enterpriser. In Scotland the majority of people tend to think the opposite and to vote for our party.

Mr. Woodburn: Has it not been made clear that most of the potatoes are sold through merchants and that there is no designation about where they live?

Mr. Willis: The majority live down here. However, apart from that, I would be the last to say that the Scottish free enterpriser was any better than the English free enterpriser.
5.45 p.m.
Having drawn attention to one or two points which I thought pertinent to the Clause—and at times it is a good thing to draw attention to the contradictions in the attitudes of hon. Members opposite towards different things—I close by saying that I shall support the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PROTECTION OF FARM ANIMALS EXPOSED FOR SALE.)

In paragraph (x) of section 20 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 (which enables orders to be made for protecting animals from unnecessary suffering during transit) after the word "transit" there shall be inserted the words "or while exposed for sale".—[Mr. Soames.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this new Clause can be discussed that in the name of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—Transport of young calves.

Mr. Soames: There is a consequential Amendment to Clause 26—in page 18, line 28, after "13", to insert:
(Protection of farm animals exposed for sale)".
It is necessary to exclude Northern Ireland from the scope of the Clause


since Northern Ireland has its own legislation and any amendment to it would be a matter for Stormont.
We are all on common ground in wanting to see that all farm animals are transported and marketed in humane conditions and that any suffering between the farm and the slaughterhouse is kept to an absolute minimum. There is general agreement that it is not always easy precisely to define what constitutes suffering and what are the appropriate measures to prevent it in all cases. However, there is a great deal that we can do.
First, there is the responsibility resting on the general public inasmuch as the Protection of Animals Act, for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible, contains general provisions designed to protect animals from cruelty in general. It is the duty of anyone who sees obvious cases of cruelty to report them to the police. If this were done more often and successful prosecutions were taken, that would point the moral to those people—mercifully they are not typical—who show less concern than they should for animals in their care.
We are here concerned with a particular class of farm animals. I hope that it is widely realised—I think that it is understood in the House—that infinitely the vast majority of farmers have a great love for their stock and are the last people in the world to wish to cause them any unnecessary suffering. There may be the individual case. This is bound to happen in so large an industry as agriculture, but, generally speaking, the farmers of this country are excellent stockmen. They love their stock, and look after them well.
The new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend is concerned broadly with two problems. First, conditions in the markets themselves, and, secondly, the transport of animals both from the farm to the market and their subsequent disposal after sale in the market. Under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, I have power to make orders to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals in transit and thus it is not necessary, as the new Clause seeks to do, to give the Minister power to make such orders. Section 20 of the 1950 Act says:

The Minister may make such orders as he thinks fit, subject and according to the provisions of this Act, for all or any of the following purposes".
and there follow eleven purposes, of which one is
for protecting animals from unnecessary suffering during inland transit.

Mr. Woodburn: Has the right hon. Gentleman made those orders?

Mr. Soames: I am coming to that.
There are a number of orders covering transport by rail, sea, and road. As I told the House, in reply to a Question some little time ago, for some months we have been engaged in revising these with a view to bringing them up to date. The general revision, and the consolidation which takes place within it, of our orders is quite a lengthy process. These orders are long and complicated, because they cover transit by road, rail and sea, and I think that it might be necessary to add air as well for all kinds of animals. It will take some time to consolidate all these, and I propose in the meanwhile to make a new order which will provide protection specifically for calves in transit.

Sir J. Maitland: When the right hon. Gentleman is talking about animals in this context, does he include poultry? A great deal of cruelty is caused to poultry in transit.

Mr. Soames: Poultry are included in the orders. They cover a wide field, and I propose to bring in an order specifically for calves, which is a simpler process, before the full task is carried out. The kind of thing that I have in mind is protection from the weather, the provision of proper barriers and partitions to prevent overcrowding, and a general obligation to carry the animals in such a way as to avoid unnecessary suffering.
There remains the question of the conditions under which animals are exposed for sale in markets. At the moment, I have no powers to make orders comparable to the powers to deal with animals in transit under the 1950 Act. I accept the view of my hon. Friends who have put down this Clause that this would be a valuable addition to the powers of the Minister of Agriculture, and I am sure that the right way to do this is as suggested in the new Clause


in my name, to add to our powers for protecting animals from unnecessary suffering during transit by adding the words:
or while exposed for sale".
The problem of markets and the condition of animals therein is not confined exclusively to calves. Nor, indeed, is our power for transit under the 1950 Act. The new Clause is drawn in more general terms and does not refer specifically to calves, because I believe that we should take this power for animals generally. I have particularly in mind animals which in the nature of things are not exposed to the elements at all, but are kept indoors. For instance, pigs are kept indoors throughout their lives. Many are kept at an average temperature, at a more or less mean temperature. The same thing applies to a number of dairy cows, which, during the winter, are kept indoors all the time. If pigs are exposed to the extreme heat of the sun in a market for a period of time, they can get badly burnt. If dairy cows which have been indoors all the winter are exposed to the elements, they, too, can suffer a good deal.
I therefore have it in mind that this new Clause should be used to make orders to ensure that animals such as pigs, dairy cows and calves have adequate protection from the weather, whether that be in the form of exposure to the weather or draughts. Such orders are likely to involve construction work in some markets, and their application to all markets will, therefore, take some time. We must, in consultation with all the interests concerned, work out orders which strike a reasonable balance in prescribing minimum standards of comfort and treatment for animals, without making the restrictions too rigid or irksome.
Before making orders either for the transport of animals or for markets, I intend to consult all interested parties, the farmers' leaders, the local authorities, the market authorities, the R.S.P.C.A. and the Scottish S.P.C.A. Our intention is to ensure that there is the minimum of suffering, to say nothing of cruelty. We all appreciate that there has to be this trade in young animals off farms, and it would be foolish to take steps which would make it impossible to move animals off farms, because it must be remembered that these are unwanted

animals, and we would merely be transferring the difficulties from one place to another.
We need to strike a sensible balance, and I think that we must work this out with those whose duty it is to watch over these interests to ensure that the right thing is done, and when that is done I will make the orders.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The Minister has talked about consulting various authorities who are interested parties. Why did such consultations not take place before he brought the Bill before the House in the first place?

Mr. Soames: I have made one speech. There are a number of hon. Members who wish to take part in this discussion, and if hon. Members agree I should like to make another speech at the end of the debate and then perhaps that would be the time to answer questions.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Pearl: I welcome the Minister's approach. Of the two Clauses dealing with this very important question of how to avoid cruelty to farm animals, I prefer the Minister's. I recommend my hon. Friends to support it. It may be that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and other hon. Members who have supported the other Clause—which is a very admirable one and which I also support in principle—will agree to the withdrawal of the Clause in view of the assurances which have been given.
The first point that I want to make concerns consultation. Mention has been made of various bodies, including local authorities. I happen to be a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and I should like to know whether that body will be consulted. The Minister did not make that clear. I should have thought that veterinary surgeons, who have continually to deal with animals, are specialist people who are capable of giving the Ministry much advice not only about the siting of markets but about the care of animals in transit and the various other problems which arise therefrom.
In saying that I hope the veterinary profession will be consulted I am not indulging in special pleadings. All interested sections should be consulted, including farming organisations and various bodies concerned with cruelty


to animals, but, above all, the veterinary profession which is concerned with animal health and has a wonderful record in the care of animals. I realise that the Minister has his own veterinary advisers, but I should like to see official consultations at the level that I have mentioned.
In this matter we are on common ground. We are all anxious to prevent the suffering of animals in transit, and we realise that it is not an easy matter to define cruelty. Often there is a responsibility on the general public. We have probably all visited auction markets and seen animals in transit at railway stations. If we see instances of cruelty we have a right and a duty to report them. I hope that the Minister's appeal in this connection will evoke some response.
On the other hand, it is right that we should also take these powers. Mention has been made of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, which enables the Minister to lay Orders concerning the movement of animals. Section 20 is very complex and detailed. Paragraph (x) of that Section refers to Orders made
for protecting animals from unnecessary suffering during inland transit …
Those words will be strengthened by the addition of the words proposed in the Minister's Clause.
I recommend those who have pressed this matter through the various organisations, and have rightly supported the Clause put down by the hon. Member for Gillingham—who has a long record in regard to the care of animals, through various societies—to accept the Minister's Clause. The hon. Member for Gillingham would be well advised to suggest to his colleagues that he should withdraw his Motion so that the matter can be dealt with by way of Orders made under the Minister's Clause.
We shall naturally study carefully the Orders that are prepared. As the Minister said, this will be a long process. It is a very difficult matter, affecting a wide variety of farm animals and the new problems which arise during transit these days. There is the problem of transit by aeroplane, and the movement of horses, including racehorses. We all have knowledge of these matters. We hope that there will be proper consultation in the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedge-field (Mr. Slater) was right to point out that consultations ought to have been held already concerning conditions in markets. We all know that many of our markets are out of date and are bad not only from an auctioneering point of view but in respect of the accommodation provided for animals. We have all seen cruel things occur—usually unwittingly. Deliberate cruelty is not practised on a large scale. Generally, it arises through carelessness.
I endorse what was said about the stockman's love of his animals, but now and then abuses occur, generally in trantit or in the markets. We have to face the serious problem of improving quickly the accommodation of our markets. This will inevitably be linked with the wider problem of the reform of our marketing structure generally, but we can discuss that matter on another occasion.
The improvement of the accommodation provided for animals will involve a large supply of capital. Considerable sums of money will have to be put into the new markets in order to provide the necessary accommodation to meet the provisions of the Orders which will be brought forward by the Minister. I hope that the Minister will initiate speedy action. In general, I welcome his approach. It is pragmatic and practical. I hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham will see the wisdom of the advice that has been given and will not press his new Clause.

Sir Richard Glyn: I join the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in welcoming my right hon. Friend's new Clause. We are sincerely grateful to him for having introduced it, and we look forward to seeing the Orders made under it. This is an extremely difficult and complicated subject, because it is rather difficult to describe cruelty.
I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend make what I thought was a most important comment, namely, the difficulty of defining cruelty. I agree, I believe that we can take two calves of the same age and size, one brought up under hothouse conditions and the other in the open field; we can subject them—indistinguishable as they are—to a given set of conditions, and find that whereas


one will be perfectly comfortable the other will suffer acutely. In many cases it is difficult to draw a line.
It is probable that the group of hon. Members on both sides of the House with which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has been prominently associated, and which has been studying this matter, has been affected by the fact that a practice has grown up lately of transporting to London weak and useless calves, fit only for slaughter, from markets a great distance away. They are sold very cheaply in London. There is a marked difference between the handling of these unfortunate, weak, cheap and useless calves and the handling of valuable calves for rearing.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that most farmers treat their calves well. I heartily agree. Most auctioneers also go to great trouble to provide proper accommodation for calves, and most hauliers also treat them very well. The great majority of the huge number of calves sold in markets are very well treated. But there is the unfortunate minority who ill-treat their animals. These people trouble the consciences not only of farmers but of other people. That is what has brought the matter to a head.
Everyone will be glad that power has been taken to control conditions at auctions, because that is where the trouble starts. Weak calves are put up, sometimes without adequate cover, or without adequate drainage. Very wet pens can cause as much misery as anything else. There is also a great deal of overcrowding. All these questions will have to be examined.
The hon. Member for Workington pointed out that a lot of money will have to be spent on improving markets. He knows that auctioneers and other people—including farmers' co-operatives—are already spending enormous capital sums in doing just this. For example, great improvements have been made at a market which I visit personally. In Sturminster Newton, the firm of Messrs. Senior and Godwin, which has the biggest calf market in the west of England, disposes of 1,300 calves not only in a day but in a few hours. The calves are brought in, sold immediately and moved at once. This at least is good, because it means that the

calves are not kept hanging about in conditions which, although as good as they can be, can never be perfect.
A great deal of money has been spent on improving the market in Shaftesbury not far away where the firm of Messrs. John Jeffrey has an entirely new market with every modem facility which I wish could be inspected by hon. Members because the arrangements there are admirable. At this market also, a large number of beasts are handled under modern conditions and everything possible is done to prevent cruelty under circumstances where, of course, time is of some importance.
The real point about which hon. Members will be concerned is what happens to the weak calves when they leave the market. We have evidence of possibly thoughtless and sometimes rather ruthless treatment by what I am convinced is a small minority of hauliers. These hauliers take these calves, which are destined for immediate slaughter, for what in some cases are surprisingly long distances; and the journeys are made in very unpleasant conditions. I am glad to know that steps are being taken about this matter.
I am aware that the movement of animals by rail is fairly satisfactory. But literally hundreds of calves are conveyed by road in three-tier diesel lorries which may emit fumes. Journeys are made during the night and the animals may be transported for a distance of 400 miles by relays of drivers. I think that regulations must be carefully and tightly drawn to control this aspect of the matter. I am sure that it is only in a minority of cases that ill-treatment occurs, but it is a crying shame that it should happen at all.
We are most grateful to my right hon. Friend for having introduced this valuable new Clause. If the undesirable practice could be stamped out at the market—because that is where the trouble starts—a great deal of cruelty could be prevented. I am glad to note that all sorts of animals will be dealt with under these provisions, and also poultry, because there have been instances of the rough handling of poultry. I hope that no time will be lost in taking action under the provisions of this new Clause so that extraordinary cases of cruelty, such as have been brought to light


recently, will be stamped out without delay.

Mr. Woodburn: I thought that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) would describe some of the cruelties to these calves which occur when they are being transferred from one point to another. Some years ago, when this matter was raised with me, I learned that some calves never have a drink between the time when they are born and the time when they are slaughtered, which seems unnecessarily cruel. If they are being transferred from one part of the country to another, at least they should be provided with water to drink. Of course, this would probably cost money. To provide them with milk would certainly cost money.
I can imagine some animals being conveyed for distances of 400 miles by the same driver, because during our debates on the transport legislation we discovered that the regulations relating to the driving of vehicles were being broken by many people and that journeys of 400 miles were made without the necessary period for rest being observed by drivers. I wish to ask the Minister whether arrangements may be made to ensure that these animals at least get a drink of water between the time when they are born and the time they die.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I pursue this matter further. I am sure that my hon. Friends are gratified at the extent to which his proposals will improve the situation, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend has gone sufficiently far.
The Bill affords an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss a matter which has been causing grave concern to the animal welfare organisations for a considerable time. It is also a matter which has recently stirred the consciences of a great many members of the public because of disclosures made in a national newspaper. Hon. Members are always careful about accepting information published by newspapers, because there is frequently a "slant" on such information, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the reporters who looked into this matter behaved in an extremely responsible way and provided every opportunity to check the statements they made about the instances of cruelty which they alleged.
These calves are so young that they can be fed only by their mothers and they have no food from the time they are born—as stated by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)—until the time they are slaughtered. It is an unfortunate fact that these disclosures are bringing discredit on the fanning community generally because many people believe that farmers are responsible. But those who have studied the matter are aware that, generally, farmers are very careful in their treatment of their animals and that many of the criticisms which have been launched against farmers are unjustified.
I believe that the present circumstances make it necessary for the Minister to take powers to remove the worst features of this trade and avoid the stigma which has been levelled against many people in the farming industry. If that is not done, such criticisms may be levelled against the Ministry for failing to prevent the worst features of this unfortunate trade from continuing. We all recognise that economic circumstances demand that these unwanted animals—for that, alas, is what they are—must be disposed of as soon as possible after they are born. But that fact cannot justify the worst features of this trade in bobby calves. The Ministry must know that the conditions under which these animals sometimes suffer should not exist in a country which prides itself on its humane treatment of animals.
As my right hon. Friend said, these unfortunate animals are of little value. But they are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth and those circumstances provide no excuse for callous treatment which sometimes occurs in the few days in which they live. On the contrary, those very circumstances should urge us to ensure that the conditions under which these animals live are improved during the time in which they live out the few days of their lives.
Can anything justify the length of time of journeys to which they are subjected? I am in a position to give the House some extremely disquieting figures about the way in which these small animals are caused to travel. There are reports from unquestionable sources saying that regular loads of calves travel from Dingwall to London and from Lanark to London, distances of 571 and 399 miles.


There are regular weekly loads from Yeovil and Taunton to destinations in Scotland and the north of England. A report of an R.S.P.C.A. inspector noted that regular weekly shipments of calves were transported from Carmarthen to Aberdeen and consignments varied from 80 to 100 animals travelling by road.
I am informed that frequently these animals, during the course of two or three days, are taken into two or three different markets. Is there any justification for this? It is not difficult to imagine misery and distress suffered by these animals subjected to travelling these long distances in conditions such as have prevailed in the last few weeks. Recently, one consignment of calves from Blackburn to Clitheroe, a distance of 46 miles, was on the road for 24 hours because of the bad weather conditions. I wonder how long some of those animals which came from Scotland to London were on the road, in what sort of condition they arrived, and how many were taken out lead at the end of the journey.
Article 8 of the Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order, 1931, says that it is necessary only to segregate cattle from other types of animals. Surely it is desirable to extend the provisions of the article to require that each type of animal shall be separated from other types. Invariably calves lie down in transit and there are frequent cases, it is stated, in which they are trampled on by larger cattle.
I move to the question of the markets. In too many markets there is an inordinate delay in beginning sales. Animals, including calves, may arrive as early as eight o'clock in the morning and selling not start until noon. Frequently, the proceedings have not finished until between three and four o'clock in the afternoon. Then the animals have to be moved and taken on long journeys. Bobby calves have had no food whatever from the time when they were taken from their mothers until they have gone to the markets and eventually arrived at the destination where they are to be slaughtered.
The remarks made by my right hon. Friend about his intentions in regard to markets will give satisfaction to a considerable number of people, not only those in animal welfare organisations, but to farmers and members of the public

generally. The Daily Mirror reported an incident yesterday in Bakewell Market, in which 7-day to 10-day-old calves had to stand for four hours in icy water 3 in. or 4 in. deep because the exit drains had been stopped by frozen snow. My right hon. Friend said earlier this afternoon the suffering that that sort of treatment can bring to these young and delicate animals.
Surely the answer to all this is to try to bring about circumstances in which young animals, these bobby calves, these unwanted, shall be taken from the farms on which they are born and slaughtered as quickly as possible without having to undergo long journeys and be subjected to the misery of going from cattle market to cattle market before reaching their ultimate end. I believe the Ministry has been approached on this matter by various organisations which are concerned about the control of the distances which these animals are carried. It is said that there is sympathy towards the idea of introducing regulations controlling length of distances they may have to travel, but that this is not enforcible and, therefore, what is the good of formulating regulations? I ask my right hon. Friend to have another look at this problem. He knows that if he sets his mind to it he can bring in regulations which would control the distances which animals are carried.
Over a long distance a lorry driver has to carry a log and indicate the journey taken and the time it lasts, so why should these difficulties be considered to be insuperable? I am sure they are not. I ask my right hon. Friend to apply himself to this question. I am not sure that he has sufficient powers or that he has taken sufficient powers to ban the sale of some calves. This is a point on which my hon. Friends and I feel very strongly. We want him to bring in an order abolishing the entry to markets of unlicked calves, those whose navel cord is still wet, which is an indication that they are very young indeed and should not be subjected to these privations.
During the war, I understand, traffic in these young calves was prohibited by a gentleman's agreement with the district chairmen of auctioneers' associations. That practice could well be given statutory force. At present, there is no official control over entry of these animals to


the markets. This is also something which I am sure my right hon. Friend will look at sympathetically and with determination to do something about it. In August last year the Farmer and Stockbreeder carried an article by a veterinary surgeon who advocated the setting up of calf banks in which farmers could dispose of calves without presenting young creatures to the markets. That would obviate long journeys and reduce disease and mortality rates.
The Ministry was consulted and agreed with the possibility, but, notwithstanding the fact that it thought it a good idea, it could not do anything further to encourage the provision of such banks. It is the policy of the National Farmers' Union to encourage farmers to co-operate one with another in selling stock, particularly calves, and introducing a system which would remove some of the worst features of which my hon. Friends and I complain.
I also hold out to my right hon. Friend that the public conscience was so stirred about the traffic in horses for slaughter overseas that the Ministry introduced a Bill banning the sale of horses for such slaughter. Adult horses are much more able to stand the rigours of the journeys to which they were subjected than are these unfortunate, unwanted animals about which we have been speaking. I ask my right hon. Friend, if it is common sense to apply restrictions to the sale of horses for slaughter, is it not common sense to say that reasonable standards are necessary in the traffic in these young calves?
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take immediate steps to ban the exposure and sale of calves below a certain age and a certain standard of fitness. I hope that he will ban long-distance transport of young calves for slaughter and will introduce a workable system of localised killing. I hope that he will introduce a compulsory order forbidding the sale of bobby calves within 14 days of original sale in the market. My right hon. Friend has already stated today that he has most of the powers to do these things. He has had the courage to admit this afternoon that he has those powers. It is now up to him to see that he uses them.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I rise to express my pleasure that the Minister has introduced this new Clause, to make one or two observations on it and to ask for his assurance in relation to one matter on which I have some anxiety.
I do not believe that there is anyone in the House who does not welcome this new Clause. I agree entirely that the farming community, generally speaking, has maintained a very high standard of behaviour in relation to its stock. But there are black sheep among it, just as there are among other groups of society, and frequently farm stock passes out of the control of the farmers. I am certain that all responsible members of the industry would welcome this extension.
I was glad that one hon. Member opposite raised the question of poultry. It is true, of course, that under the Diseases of Animals Act poultry are not animals. On the other hand, there is special provision in Section 45 of that Act which provides that all Orders made in relation to animals shall apply equally to poultry. Therefore, when the Minister makes this comprehensive Order I hope that he will bear in mind that in that Order he has to cover circumstances which might arise in relation to poultry as well as to animals as defined in the Act.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) spoke with great feeling about the position with regard to the transport of young calves, and I share his sentiments to the full. I would say that what he asks for in his new Clause can be done by the Minister under the powers which he already has and under the powers which he will acquire under this new Clause. The fact is that on the transit aspect of this matter there cannot be any question of lack of powers because the Minister under the 1950 Act has full powers to deal with transit problems concerning young calves. He is not acquiring any new powers under this new Clause in relation to transit.
Now that the Minister is extending paragraph (x) of Section 20, which is the effect of this new Clause, this will enable him to make a far more comprehensive Order governing the position of calves and of animals and poultry generally. I hope that we shall have that


Order with the least possible delay and that he will bear in mind many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham when it is framed. I agree that it will not be an easy matter. There are aspects on which one has to be realistic and practical. I hope that the Minister will consult the farming community and those responsible for running the markets and also those who are concerned with transport, because if these Orders are unreal and artificial they will be of no practical help.
There is one other matter that I wish to touch upon. I am not quite happy that what is now proposed to be done by the Minister does not still leave a gap. I hope that I am wrong in this and that the Minister will be able to help me. Paragraph (x) of the 1950 Act deals with inland transit. The new Clause deals with calves exposed for sale, and I should like the Minister's assurance that he is quite satisfied that there is no gap there. The phrase that worries me is "exposed for sale". I should have thought that an animal that had been sold was clearly no longer in the position of exposed for sale. If it has ceased to be in the category of one exposed for sale because it has been sold, does it immediately come into the category of an animal in transit? I rather doubt it.
It is quite clear that the Minister and everyone in the House, I believe, intends to cover the whole of the period of an animal which is exposed for sale and which is ultimately in transit. Once an animal is sold in the market, although it ceases to be exposed for sale, it may be said that, as soon as that time passes, it is then immediately in transit. I am not at all happy about it. There may well be a loophole here which would be most unfortunate. In that regard I have been looking at Section 21 which deals with the position of animals suffering from pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. It appears to me that there we have the problem dealt with in a far more comprehensive way. I do not want to weary the House with details, but I should like to refer to two paragraphs:
(i) while exposed for sale or exhibited in a market, fair, sale-yard, place of exhibition, or other place,
There is also a general provisions with regard to Section 21 which if it were in this new Clause would certainly remove

any possible ambiguity in relation to the position of calves. It is this.
(vi) generally, while being in a place not in the possession or occupation or under the control of the owner of the animals".
If there were a similar provision in this new Clause, quite clearly there would be no gap at all. I would ask the Minister to tell us whether he is satisfied that there is no gap and that he can make Orders that will cover the position not only of an animal up for sale but of an animal after it is sold and before it starts on any journey. Subject to that qualification, I welcome the new Clause, and I hope that the Minister will produce a set of comprehensive Orders covering the position which has been envisaged by a number of hon. Members. I feel certain that the farming community would welcome these Orders if they were framed in a really practical way.

Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): Those of us who have been concerned in inquiring into this unfortunate trade in what are known as bobby calves recognise that my right hon. Friend has attempted to solve a most difficult problem. Nevertheless, I think that there is a great deal in the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). I believe that we can do more to alter this trade than that which my right hon. Friend suggests. Cruelty is unavoidable to a degree in certain cases. Where it is avoidable but practised, we must obviously condemn it. I have in the past few days instigated an inquiry in my own city of Newcastle into the all too regular escapes of cattle from the city's abattoirs. These escapes are unnecessary. With the provision of sufficient hurdles, with the correct provision of unloading docks and with a reasonable amount of care on the part of those concerned with unloading, it is unnecessary for animals to know the awful cruelty of suddenly finding themselves loose in city streets.
One recognises that the trade in bobby calves is difficult to control. The ideal is that the bobby calves should be taken straight from the farm to the point of slaughter. Some day this may well be recognised as an ideal for all fatstock. Those of us who are in the business know that there are many hurdles to jump


before we get to that one, but it is a rather fine ideal at which to aim.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Why transport bobby calves from the farm at all? Why not slaughter them on the farm?

Mr. Elliott: Because in most cases that would not be hygienic. It would not be practical. I think that my right hon. Friend was right in suggesting that we must show a certain amount of care, or we may move the place of cruelty from the auction yard or the cattle truck to the farm. One must be practical. The bobby calf has a certain value. Its flesh has a certain value. Its skin has a certain value. If we are practical we must realise that, in common with all other fatstock, it should be slaughtered in a duly appointed and duly supervised abattoir. The ideal is that the calf should be transported direct from farm to abattoir. It is right and proper, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham made clear, that we should appreciate publicly that many dairy farmers are doing this, quite often at financial loss to themselves—in fact, usually at a financial loss to themselves. An enormous number of dairy farmers detest the trade in bobby calves and take their calves to slaughterhouses direct from the farm and as quickly as possible.
What those of us who have tabled the new Clause are after is the dealing in these unfortunate animals. We want to cut out the enormous distances travelled. We want to cut out if possible the fact that calves can be shown in more than one market.
I believe that the so-called insuperable difficulties here are not as insuperable as all that. We could institute a system of localised slaughtering in this country, as indeed we did during the war, which would cover a very large proportion of the country. We realise that there is the outlying problem. We realise that the very small dairy farmer would experience a transport difficulty, but this does not apply to the majority. I wholeheartedly support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham that a system of localised slaughtering of these animals should be examined.
In addition, I believe that we can do something about the distances travelled.
Lorry drivers have to keep logs. It is quite deplorable that small calves are transported in this way. Indeed, sometimes calves are only two or three hours old at the point of loading. I heard of one case of a lorry driver went to a farm recently. The lorry was loaded with fatstock for the local fatstock market, the fatstock being cattle and sheep. The driver was asked to wait ten minutes until a calf was born so that it, too, could be transported to market. This is deplorable. I think we can eliminate the necessity for such calves to be transported enormous distances. It is the dealers we are after.
Therefore, I support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham that the possibility of the unlicked calf being prevented from reaching the market should be at least examined. It would be very difficult indeed to ensure that no calf should be shown until it was two weeks old, as it would be difficult indeed far anyone to say just how old a calf was. But we can do something about the unlicked calf. Any inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, any auctioneer, or, for that matter, any haulier will know an unlicked calf when he sees one. This aspect of the problem should be carefully considered.
The Minister has suggested that he is seeking powers to control the transit of bobby calves. Does this power include the power in certain circumstances to forbid the transport of these calves? I support wholeheartedly the very excellent efforts made during the course of this debate and for a long time now by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham to do something about this deplorable trade.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I wholeheartedly support what has been said by the hon. Members for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott). The hon. Member for Gillingham, as secretary to the all-party committee for animal welfare, has a very specialised knowledge of the problems arising in relation to cruelty to animals in very many spheres. Those of us who served with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North on the Slaughterhouses Bill, 1958, know that


he made some excellent contributions to those discussions because of his specialised knowledge.
I am grateful to the Minister for having come forward this afternoon with this proposal, because I believe that he hoped that this proposal would meet what we of the all-party committee for animal welfare had in mind. After the speeches which have been made, particularly by the hon. Members for Gillingham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts and that he will not withdraw the Clause but see whether it is possible within the regulations and powers already granted him by Parliament to do something to minimise the cruelty which is obviously present in the transport and slaughter of bobby calves.
I do not blame all people concerned in it—of course not. However, there appears to be an appreciable minority of people who are benefiting by this excessive cruelty. I for one am not ashamed to say cruelty. I, for one, am not ashamed to say Daily Mirror, in its issue of 31st December last, rendered the nation a very good service by bringing to the notice of everybody just what this trade involves. I do not want to make a long speech. I think that the case has been made out. I am sure that the Minister is convinced of the need to do whatever is possible within his present powers, and such powers as he may be able to take, but I implore him not to delay dealing with the iniquity of the treatment of these bobby calves so that he can consult interests all over the place, which may take years, while waiting for markets to be substantially improved, or for this, that and the other.
This is a very simple problem. The hon. Members for Gillingham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North are right in saying that localised slaughter is the real answer to this problem and that the dealers' trade should, if possible, be abolished. Let us get rid of the unnecessary cruelty, and then, I am sure, the nation will say "Thank you" to all of us.

Mr. Bullard: The Minister has gone a long way towards allaying some of the fears concerning cruelty to animals. We all know that a certain amount of cruelty can occur on rare occasions, so I hope

that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will not pursue his new Clause, because the Minister should be given every chance to take what measures he can to prevent cruelty.
I would like to follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) about the possibility of calves being prevented from coming into the market. I believe that that could be done. My hon. Friends have chosen to say in their new Clause that no calf under 14 days old should be exposed in a market for sale. The difficulty here is that we would not wish to interfere with the trade in rearing calves. We appreciate, too, that these calves must be moved about the country to a certain extent and that it would be bad to upset that trade in any way.
However, I believe that it would be possible to make a limit of weight below which no calf should be exposed for sale. Such a limit would be easily enforced, a weight test being applied before calves are transported. I realise that some breeding societies might complain that their trade would be upset because they go in for small calves. However, these societies could adjust their breeding policies to ensure that their calves were not so small. In any case, the calves could be kept on the farms a little longer; until they are a bit bigger and of such a size and age to be suitable to be transported.
It must be realised that in many cases these calves are not really wanted. They are put on the market, picked up by people who will make a bit of money out of them and are not really worth much when they have to be transported a long distance. Many people will not transport them a long way unless they are able to secure a large enough number to make the transportation worth while.

Mr. Harold Davies: There is one aspect of this important matter which the House has not yet considered. Naturally, all hon. Members will agree with the sentiments that have been expressed about cruelty to animals. Unfortunately, man is himself a meat-eating animal and the Daily Mirror and other newspapers have done a great service to the country by drawing attention to the terrible cruelty which is caused to bobby calves.
Do not let us be hypocritical about this. If man is to eat meat there is bound to be a certain amount of cruelty in the butchery and transport of animals. Nevertheless, we want to reduce this cruelty to the minimum. Common sense tells us that if a farmer is moving calves for rearing purposes, he would be a fool if he did not look after them and if the hauliers did not take care in their transport. But for the sort of cruelty we are discussing—and we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) for having drawn attention to the plight of unlicked calves and bobby calves—this is a matter where the House of Commons may be able to help.
We have heard the voices of experienced farmers—especially that of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott)—and it may be that an answer can be found on the farm itself. One can see the logic of the words "while exposed for sale" in the Minister's new Clause, but it has been pointed out that we want something further to be done and that this should be extended—if need be to animals while they are on exhibition and being transported after their sale. I hope that the Minister will do something along those lines.
I should like to know whether the Minister has discussed the question of improving matters with the people who really know; the transport industry, "vets", local authorities and hauliers. Hon. Members should realise that, if we are to ask local authorities to improve the protection given to animals while they are exposed for sale in country markets, it will mean a great deal of extra cost—the expansion of buildings and other facilities—and the necessity to protect animals from the wind, rain and sun. Before the Minister tabled the Clause was any estimate obtained from local authorities in the rural and market areas about what the cost might be? Would the Exchequer make a grant to the local authorities concerned so that they could improve their cattle markets and provide such conditions?
We are all aware of the cruelty that can go on. We know the terrible story of the calves at Bakewell which had to

stand in snow 4 inches thick. While we all wish to prevent this sort of thing happening, who is to improve the cattle markets and bear the additional expense? The financing of local authorities is antiquated at present, even with the block grant system, and one day a Government will have to face up to the whole problem of local government finance.
It would be interesting to know how much these improvements would cost and whether the Minister would be prepared to give a percentage in grants from the Exchequer to local authorities to make the improvement. I will not restate the sentiments which have already been so ably expressed by other hon. Members, but wish merely to bring this question of cost to the Minister's attention.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: Like other hon. Members, I give the Clause my full support. It is an excellent feature of this House that while on occasions we argue and become rather angry with one another on certain issues, when we discuss questions such as this—concerning the prevention of cruelty to humans or animals—it is nice to know that all hon. Members are united in their views. The Minister should be congratulated for having introduced his new Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman is not going as far as many of us would like, but it is a move in the right direction and we welcome it. Those of us who live in rural areas and who are familiar with the sight of animals being transported to and from farms are often perturbed when we see an isolated case of cruelty. We might be at our local market and, perhaps, have a twinge of conscience when we see an animal being poorly treated. I suppose that we can report it, but I think that we take the line of least resistance and shut our eyes.
I am glad that the Minister has included poultry in the Clause, because in some parts of the country the keeping of poultry has become a very big industry in recent years. Poultry can be treated badly. There are many battery houses in which hens, confined to small cages, are virtually laying machines. When the "machine" stops laying and there are no more eggs the owner must change over to a new lot of hens and


it often happens that the old batch of hens are put into crates and sometimes transported long distances, often in very cold weather, having just come out of hot battery houses.
The Minister's new Clause will be welcome to hon. Members on both sides of the House and particularly to all animal lovers.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: Far be it from me to throw a douche of cold water on this new Clause, but all that the Minister is doing is to add a very few words to those giving him the powers he already has. He has made it perfectly clear that he possesses all the powers necessary to deal with animals in transit and that all he now proposes is to insert
or while exposed for sale".
He claims no more than that. If the Minister already has the necessary powers, we are entitled to ask why he and his Department have not used them.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said that animals are being carried long distances, and instanced journeys of 400, 500 and nearly 600 miles. If the law is being contravened, surely there is power under the Transport Act to deal with the drivers who are contravening it. There it is quite clearly the responsibility of the Government to take action, and it may be that if we do no more today than insist on the Government taking action we shall have done a good job. The same remarks could be applied to cruelty to these animals. We all abhor cruelty of any kind, and all we now ask is that the Minister will do something about it.
I would tell the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) was not seeking to criticise the new markets, or to assert that no new markets existed. He acknowledged that many people have spent considerable sums of money in modernising their markets, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there are far too many markets that are out of date and need considerable sums of money to be spent on them—

Sir Richard Glyn: I understood the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) to say that this money needed to be

found, but he appeared not to be aware that this need was being met, that the money was being found and that markets were being improved.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The real problem is to be found not in local authority markets but in the enormous and increasing number of private enterprise slaughter houses.

Mr. Hoy: I was about to deal with that point. All I sought to make clear was that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington was attacking those markets that are completely out of date and quite unfit for their purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) spoke of Government grants to bring these markets up to date, and that brings in the very point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). It is obviously the duty of those owning these establishments to bring them up to date, and among the small local authorities there may be those who need a grant for that purpose. But do not let us get into the habit of thinking that every time an improvement has to be made, whether the property be publicly owned or privately owned, it can be done only by means of Government grant. If the regulations are to be effective, it will be essential for the Minister to see that the markets are so built as to provide what he would want to have under the regulations.
We certainly commend what has been said. The Minister has not sought to claim more for this new Clause than I had pointed out but he gave the House an assurance. We now ask him to put his speech into action. In doing what he can to prevent this appalling suffering to these animals he will have the wholehearted backing of the House.

Mr. Soames: This debate has been most helpful to me, because a number of hon. Members on both sides have suggested what improvements might be made, and what might be included in these Orders. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) asked me to take into account what has been said, and I do not think that he needs my telling him that, of course, I shall. Several hon. Members have given


me their ideas—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who has devoted so much time and thought to this acknowledged problem—and this has been very helpful.
I do not want what I say to cause either undue optimism or undue pessimism. I want to strike the balance of what I think is possible and feasible. Some hon. Members have talked of restriction in terms of the age of the calves going into the market. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) who has great experience, talked in terms of weight. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) referred, quite rightly, to the totally different cruelty or suffering that might be caused to two calves of identical age. There is, first, the calf reared on the hill for a matter of days and weeks. When that animal goes to market, it finds nothing wrong with it at all. On the other hand when the little dairy calf, born in a cowshed and kept in the stall for a few days, goes to market, it is completely lost, and suffers.
We have to be very careful in drawing these regulations not to put a stop to what is a proper and rightful trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, who has done a lot of research into this matter, mentioned calves going from Caernarvon to Aberdeen—a long haul. I should be very surprised if those were not rearing calves and not bobby calves at all—

Mr. Burden: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has raised that point. I did not mean to say that all these animals were, in fact, bobby calves. I do not wish to be unfair, or to give the wrong impression.

Mr. Soames: I was not seeking to accuse my hon. Friend of trying to mislead me. When spelling out these things, one can make it sound as though a long journey with these calves was a terrible thing, but this is a trade, and the animals will live for a long time. They are born, perhaps, on the hills of Wales, then off they go to other farms to be reared. I do not think that hon. Members opposite would like to see that trade die—nor, looking at the economic interests of farming, would we. On the other hand, there are certain practices which we should like to see stopped.

I assure the House that I shall be consulting all who can contribute thought to this matter so that we may have a meeting of minds. It may be that weight should be a factor, and may be not. One could have a very young and comparatively heavy calf and have a pure bred Guernsey or Jersey a few weeks old which should be knocked on the head if it is a bull calf, and it might not be knocked on the head all that well or efficiently. On the other hand, it might be kept as an unwanted animal on a farm for longer than one would have wished.
In these Orders, both in terms of transportation and in terms of what happens in the markets, we are out to ensure that, on the one hand, we bring in rules and regulations to secure that in the admittedly few cases cruelty is stopped to the best of our ability while, on the other hand, we do not interfere with what are the proper economics of livestock farming.

Mr. Hayman: Although in some areas there may be only a few cases, it has been said that tens of thousands of calves are involved in transit from Lanarkshire to London.

Mr. Soames: I do not know to what length of time the hon. Member refers, but I think that the number of bobby calves which are moved a long distance—and they are moved only because of the economics of the trade—is not a high proportion. Most of these calves are slaughtered fairly near the farm, but there is a long-distance trade and we must bear this in mind when we are framing the regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, who is anxious that we should get to grips with this problem is also, I am sure, as anxious as is the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) or myself that trade in calves from the hill lands to other farms in other parts of the country should not be prohibited.

Mr. Hayman: Nobody is speaking of those.

Mr. Soames: Then we must define. Those who have studied this matter carefully, with a proper balance in their minds, will appreciate that this is not a problem which is easy to solve. I was asked specifically by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) whether I would discuss the matter with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The answer is that we have already decided to do that,


and to discuss it also with the Veterinary Association, and with the societies which are concerned with cruelty to animals as well as with the leaders of the farming industry and the market authorities.
7.15 p.m.
The transport aspect has been mentioned. Here again we must try to secure a balance between the fullest consultation and somewhat speedy action. I know what the House wants and what I want, and I shall do my best to bring it about. It has been questioned whether what is required is sufficiently covered by the words "exposure for sale". I am advised that it is. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) spoke of the reference in Section 21 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, to exposure for sale. The words are:
while exposed for sale or exhibited in a market, fair, sale-yard, place of exhibition, or other place …
"Exhibited" refers to the place of exhibition, and where a market is concerned "exposed for sale" is the term used. This will enable regulations to be made covering the conditions in which calves live within the market and the length of time over which they can be kept in the market. I do not believe that there is a gap in the legislation.

Mr. Bowen: As I understand, the Minister is saying that this matter will be covered by the phrase "while exposed for sale". But I have in mind calves which are not usually sold in the ring but are kept in their pens ready to be sold. At that time they are exposed for sale and therefore there is no difficulty. Then they are sold, and five to six hours may elapse before transport is arranged and they are transported away. It is difficult to say that they are still exposed for sale. They have been sold. Are they in transit? If they are not in transit and they are not exposed for sale, they are not covered.

Mr. Soames: I have in mind laying down the regulations under which calves will be kept in markets. Markets differ and we cannot generalise, but there are a number of markets where calves, especially those which are destined for almost immediate slaughter, are tied up to any old railing and are not kept under cover or given any of the benefits that other more valuable animals are given. I envisage as part of the regulations that the calves must be protected from the

weather, with side boards and the like. At the moment, many of them are kept out of doors and there is no regulation to prevent that. Once the animal has been sold it becomes the property of the purchaser, but we believe that the regulations which we shall be able to lay down will cover animals within the market. These animals will also be covered both before and after sale by the general legislation dealing with cruelty to animals.

Mr. John Morris: Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has not made a valid point in that there may well be a gap where it is possible the Minister will not be able to make regulations? I understand the point the hon. and learned Member has made because I am familiar with the market he has in mind. He has pointed to the practice of selling calves in the pen. The calves may well change hands again without being moved out of the pen and in between may never commence to be in transit. This frequently happens in West Wales markets.
I understand that the Minister has powers to make regulations covering the animals while they are exposed for sale. I fully understand the point that once the sale has been completed the animals cease to be exposed for sale and yet have not commenced to be in transit. Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely sure that he has powers to make comprehensive regulations to deal with all the matters raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan?

Mr. Soames: When the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan was speaking I sought technical advice and I was informed that the Bill gave all the powers necessary to cover markets, but, of course, I will look at the point again. If it is necessary to do anything more it will be possible to add to the Bill when it passes through another place. At first blush, all I can say is that the information I am given is that it is technically sufficient for the purposes which we seek to achieve, to ensure that calves in markets are treated in the right way.
I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides for the spirit in which they have put down their new Clause and the way in which they have accepted the new Clause which I have moved. I take


the message of the House that it is looking for satisfactory regulations to be made as soon as right and proper. I realise that this is my responsibility, and I hope that the House will accept the new Clause which I have commended to it.

Mr. Archie Manuel: May I put one question to the Minister? I am sorry that I did not hear his opening statement on the new Clause. I am concerned about one aspect of the treatment of animals in transit. I have had some experience of this matter, and I have been much troubled by the amount of suffering endured by animals, principally cattle, being transported in cattle trucks. The normal practice, which seems to have sufficed in most people's minds, is that the animals are loaded head to tail and in such numbers that, presumably, they are unable to turn round or fall. I have frequently been very concerned to see the conditions in which some animals have had to travel on the railways during fairly long journeys when, in some way or other, they have been able to turn round.
If the cattle wagons were slotted so that each animal had protection instead of the whole lot having the entire wagon space to occupy, this would provide a far better measure of safety and there would not be the bruising and wounding caused by animals falling and being trodden on or by animals, particularly cattle when not dehorned, turning round.

Mr. Soames: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall have it in mind along with all else that has been said in the debate when I consider the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITS IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS.)

The periods specified respectively by—

(a) paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949;
(b) paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 to the said Act of 1948,

as the period within which the parties to an arbitration are to deliver statements of their cases and the period within which the arbitrator is to make his award shall each be extended by fourteen days; and accordingly

(i) for the word "fourteen", in both places where it occurs in the said paragraph 6 or the said paragraph 5, there shall be substituted the word "twenty-eight";
(ii) for the word "forty-two" in the said paragraph 13 there shall be substituted the word "fifty-six".—[Mr. Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Morris: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Although the new Clause appears to be complicated, the point is quite simple. In arbitration proceedings, the parties have to prepare their statements of case and submit them to the arbitrator within 14 days of the appointment of the arbitrator. We seek to extend the time from 14 to 28 days. In Committee, we discussed the matter at considerable length on an Amendment, and I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the understanding way in which he has approached the object which we have in mind.
Fourteen days is far too short a time for the parties to prepare their cases. A farmer may have to go to see his adviser, a professional adviser, perhaps his trade union representative, an auctioneer or an estate agent. In difficult and complicated cases, the assistance of counsel may have to be sought. Difficulties sometimes arise—I have had experience of this—when a large number of people have to be consulted. Sometimes, a further opinion has to be sought. All this takes time.
The period of 14 days is fixed and the arbitrator has no power to extend it. If one of the parties fails to submit his statement of case within that time, he is out of court and is limited in the subsequent arbitration to cross-examining the other side. Difficulties and injustices may arise in this way.
I should have preferred the arbitrator to be given a discretionary power to extend the time. However, short of that, the proposal in the new Clause to extend the time from 14 to 28 days is the best way to amend the law. I am supported in the new Clause by the views of a committee which considered the matter as far back as 1943. It was the unanimous


opinion of a committee which considered the working of the arbitration provisions of our agricultural holdings legislation that 14 days was too short a time and that it should be extended to 28 days.
The latter part of the new Clause makes the necessary consequential change in the time allowed to the arbitrator to come to his decision. At present, the period is 42 days after his appointment. If the time given to the parties for the submission of statements of case is extended to 28 days, the arbitrator must of necessity have his time for coming to a decision extended. I commend the new Clause to the House.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has explained the object of the new Clause very clearly, and there is little I need add.
The parties to an arbitration in an agricultural holdings matter have 14 days, starting from the time when the arbitrator is appointed, to formulate and deliver to the arbitrator statements of evidence and the arguments which they wish to adduce. This time limit of 14 days was introduced by the Labour Government in 1948 with the object of reducing the delays which had been experienced under pre-war legislation
By and large, the period of 14 days has proved sufficient, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but those who have to work these provisions are agreed that there is a case for extending the time, and they suggest that an extension to 28 days would be right and proper. Although this is not something on which the Government would have felt constrained to act of their own motion, I consider that the new Clause would make a useful improvement, and I am very willing to recommend its acceptance by the House.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who pressed this matter in Committee. As the Minister said, proceedings on arbitration are covered by legislation introduced by the Labour Government in 1948. The detail is to be found in the Sixth Schedule to the Agricultural Hold-

ings Act, 1948. Although we are always very proud of the legislation passed then, which was taken through the House by Lord Williams of Barnburgh, we recognise that the 1948 Act, although it improved landlord and tenant relationships and gave a measure of security to all concerned, has been found to be defective here and there after the passage of years.
My hon. Friend cogently argued his case in Committee and he has convinced the Government. I congratulate him. I am glad that the Minister has responded on this occasion, and we are delighted that at least this part of the Bill is to be improved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 5.—(REGISTRATION OF SUPPLIERS FOR PURPOSES OF AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS) ACT, 1952, AND PENALTY FOR FALSE STATEMENTS, ETC.)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the end to insert:
(5) Subsections (2) to (4) of this section shall have effect in relation to any application for registration under this section made before the commencement of this Act as if this Act had then been in force; and any registration before the commencement of this Act in pursuance of such an application shall be deemed to be registration under this section.
Clause 5, which is concerned with the registration of fertiliser suppliers, is a means of giving officials of my Department access to fertiliser suppliers' books and records. As the Clause is drafted, the process of registering fertiliser merchants cannot be started before the Bill has been passed. On the other hand, we want to get fertiliser suppliers registered before the beginning of the Fertiliser Subsidy Scheme, 1963, so that the power given by subsection (1) of the Clause to confine the subsidy to purchases from suppliers can be used in that scheme.
Previous subsidy schemes have started on 1st July. On this basis, there would not be much time between the passing of the Bill and the starting of the new subsidy year to get everyone on the register who should be on it. That


would be a sufficient reason for amending the Clause so as to enable the officials to get round and make a start on registering fertiliser merchants.
A further factor has come to light. We recently decided, in view of the altered practice of the trade in making its new price schedules and early delivery rebates operative from 1st June and not 1st July, to begin this year's subsidy scheme on 1st June so that we are on all fours with the merchant's fertiliser year. This means that we should have even less time in which to draw up the register if we waited until the Bill was passed before the beginning of their year. It is, therefore, even more essential that we should not have to wait until the Bill has gone through. The proposed new subsection does not apply to Northern Ireland, and therefore, a consequential Amendment to Clause 26 (4) will be needed. I recommend the Amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT.)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 18, line 27, to leave out "(4)" and insert "(5)".

This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to the Clause dealing with the fertiliser subsidy.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 28, after "13", insert:
(Protection of farm animals exposed for sale)".—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]
In page 18, line 28, after "18", insert:
and (Extension of time limits in arbitration proceedings relating to agricultural holdings)".—[Mr. Peart.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First, I should like to thank all those who have contributed to our discussions on the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee upstairs and this afternoon. Hon. Members have been very tolerant with me in my frequent enforced absences from the

Committee, and I am grateful to them, but I think that they would all agree that my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have made able contributions in Committee. We have been able to agree upon some additions to the Bill which will add to its value, and we have thoroughly examined those provisions which have been in it from the outset. Many of the Clauses are enabling Clauses, and detailed schemes which we shall make under them will be watched by hon. Members. The discussions in Committee have given us the opportunity of knowing what is in the minds of hon. Members about the scope of the schemes, and this will be borne in mind when drawing up the orders.
The core of the Bill is in those provisions which will help to strengthen the economic and competitive position of the agricultural industry during the coming years. Foremost among these is the additional provision of £35 million for the Farm Improvement Scheme. I believe that there is general acceptance on both sides of the House—and the passage of the Bill has shown this—about the value and success of this scheme.
In addition, we are providing more funds for land improvement schemes in the hills, extending powers to pay hill stock subsidies and providing for new schemes to grant-aid winter keep in the hills and the improvement of permanent grassland, and we are giving Government support to the industry's own efforts to encourage market research, machinery syndicates and co-operation under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent.
There is another group of measures in the Bill by which we are bringing existing legislation up to date where changing policies, changing circumstances or new techniques make this necessary. This applies, for example, to the extension of fertiliser subsidy to foliar sprays, the prospect of new standards for bull and boar licensing under Clause 16 and the Amendment in Clause 21 about the cooling of eggs.
I should number among these sorts of provisions Clause 17 which provides for the abolition of the Land Commission and the Welsh Sub-Commission. I


know that hon. Members opposite regard this as a point of principle. Given the policy which the Government have pursued for many years in disposing of land in the ownership of the State as far as this can be done, it inevitably follows that the task left to the Land Commission cannot justify its continued existence. This is no reflection at all on the work which the Commission and the Sub-Commission have done in managing a very considerable acreage in the past with great skill and finishing with a good financial record.
My hon. Friends and I said that we would later refer to certain points which were raised in Committee upstairs, and I should like to touch on one or two of them now. The first concerns Clause 5, which deals with the registration of fertiliser merchants with the object of securing better control over the administration of the fertiliser subsidy. Subsection (4) of that Clause provides that, before refusing to register a fertiliser supplier or cancelling a registration, the Minister must give written notice of the grounds for this action and give the person concerned an opportunity of being heard by someone appointed by the Minister.
I can confirm that when such a hearing takes place the merchant concerned will be able to be represented by a lawyer or some other professional adviser should he so wish. This point was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). It is our intention that an independent lawyer will be invited to conduct any such hearing. The procedure would follow the rules laid down in orders made by the Lord Chancellor for public hearings which are held into local authority planning decisions and compulsory purchase orders. Any decision to refuse or cancel a merchant's registration would be taken at Ministerial level, although I hope that the need for this will not arise.
In Committee upstairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) and other hon. Members put forward a case for using the power in Clause 5 so as to confine registration in some way to what were described in Committee upstairs as bona fide merchants. But for the purposes of safeguarding the subsidy—this is what

we are after in the Bill—it is sufficient for us to have powers to inspect the books of those who are dealing in fertilisers, and this is what the Clause gives. It would be undesirable to be more restrictive, particularly as the sanction of refusing registration is a powerful one. It was not our intention to limit the number of people who could trade in fertilisers but merely that we could have access to the books of those who traded in them, so that the subsidy can be safeguarded.
When discussing Clause 20 in Standing Committee, several hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), were anxious that when a farmer was displaced by an acquiring authority and no allowance was paid, he should be told the reason for this, or that even when an allowance was made, he should know the basis on which the authority had determined the amount. I promised to consider this.
As a result, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is arranging that when the Bill has received Royal Assent a circular will be sent to the various acquiring authorities asking them to give this information on request not only to farmers as covered by Clause 20 but also to other classes of occupiers in a similar position under the corresponding provisions of the Housing Act, 1957, and the Land Compensation Act, 1961. This, I think, meets the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. In Scotland, corresponding arrangements will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Clause 22, which gives the Sugar Board power to implement the agreement which we have reached with Northern Ireland, was the subject of considerable discussion in Committee. I do not want to reopen discussion on all the aspects of this complex subject, but I should like to make one or two things clear. First, there is no doubt that Irish exporters suffered damage as a result of the sugar régime which was introduced at the beginning of 1962 as compared with their position before that time. The new agreement compensates the Irish, and it is right that it should in view of our special relations with them. That is the Government's view. The members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement were similarly affected and they have been compensated.
It has been suggested that the agreement is unfair and one-sided, but this is not so. The Irish Republic will in future import Commonwealth sugar for its own needs and for its export trade with this country. This is a valuable new market which has been welcomed by Commonwealth exporters. They have already made their first sale of 15,000 tons for delivery this year.
Secondly, the Irish Sugar Corporation has agreed to purchase the produce from a trial of sugar beet in Northern Ireland, a trial which has been proposed by the Ulster National Farmers' Union and is of considerable interest to its members. The Irish have agreed to restrict exports of refined sugar to Northern Ireland to the reduced quantity of 10,500 tons.
Thus, so far from damaging the interests of sugar refiners, if anything the agreement helps them by leaving a slightly bigger market for them in Northern Ireland, for the Southern Irish are limited to 10,500 tons being sold to Northern Ireland as compared with a figure of 13,000 tons in the last year or so. So much for individual Clauses.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the Minister give some information on Clause 22? Under the agreement, if prices of sugar fell to very low levels, what would be the ceiling which the Sugar Board would pay to the Irish Sugar Corporation?

Mr. Soames: As a basis for the agreement, we took a world price of sugar of £25 per ton. Given that price, the money going over to the Irish Sugar Board would be £150,000. That was the mean that we took and that is the figure that the Irish have lost as a result of the new regime. If the world price of sugar goes above £25 per ton, the payment would be less than £150,000. If the average world price over the year were £30 instead of £25, the sum would be £100,000. If it fell to £20 per ton, the payment would go up from £150,000 to £200,000.
Apart, possibly, from an odd day or two at some time or other, the world price of sugar has not fallen below an average of £20 throughout the year for 20 years. I do not think that there could be any question of the world price of sugar falling below £20 a ton for any length of time without its having a

disastrous effect upon world sugar producers. It is considered most unlikely that any price of this sort would rule for any length of time.
We have, however, taken £25 as the mean. If the price drops, the payment will be slightly more than £150,000. Every £5 less in the world price of sugar represents £50,000 more; every £5 more means £50,000 less. That is how we arrived at these figures.
The Title of the Bill—Miscellaneous Provisions—does not belie its contents. This only shows, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will know, the remarkable diversity of the problems that arise in agriculture. The problems go beyond those of agricultural legislation.
All of us have turned our thoughts from time to time to the farmers who were grappling with the physical problems of feeding and watering their stock, sometimes buried in snowdrifts, and of keeping supplies moving off the farm. I hope that what we are doing in the Bill will help the farmer in tackling no less effectively some of the economic and technical problems that lie ahead.
Assistance to the industry in the shape of direct farming grants forms a major part of the Government's policy for the industry. With expenditure now running at over £100 million per annum, it is right that we should keep the different forms of assistance under review in Parliament. The Bill serves that purpose.
With the provisions of the Bill, we are refurbishing some of the well-proved schemes of grant aid and introducing new ones to meet new needs. I am grateful to hon. Members who have studied and helped to improve the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Peart: We on this side of the House accepted the Bill in principle, but in Committee by hon. Friends sought particularly to scrutinise its financial provisions. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) would like to have spoken again on the mushroom subsidies.

Mr. Loughlin: I shall do.

Mr. Peart: I have no doubt that if he is called, my hon. Friend will be able


to elaborate on that aspect of the Bill. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends and for their scrunity of the Bill, not only its financial implications but also its legislative effects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has this evening had a new Clause accepted which shows that, even though the Bill may be a very good one, we have had to seek to make improvements here and there. I recognise that the Minister was busy elsewhere during certain stages of the Bill, but his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary won his spurs in Committee. We pay our tribute to the courtesy and the conscientiousness with which the hon. Gentleman responded to suggestions made by us. The Minister has had his disappointments.
The Bill is really an interesting one. The very fact that it was introduced at the time of our negotiations with the E.E.C. is extremely interesting. It is not for me to go into the wider aspects of agricultural policy now, for we must talk only about the Bill on Third Reading. But inevitably this Measure flows from the main legislation we have passed since the war. Indeed, tribute has been paid only today to Lord Williams, Minister of Agriculture in the period which produced the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948—which sought to improve tenant-landlord relationships—and, above all, the basic Act of 1947, which covers part of what we are dealing with now.
Despite the asinine comment of the Lord Privy Seal in reply to an intervention I made, when he said that entrance into the E.E.C. would not have harmed the position established by the 1947 and 1957 Acts, I am glad that the Ministry at this stage through this Bill seeks to build upon what the Labour Government started in 1947 and even before then.
The Bill provides a considerable sum of money to the industry. We commented on this during Second Reading. I sought then to analyse the policy of the Government. I asked whether it was deliberate policy to shift support from deficiency payments to production grants. As the Minister has said, quite rightly, grants—which I support—are now running at approximately £100 million a year, which is a very large sum. As this policy gives

a different direction to the industry, it is right that we should carefully scrutinise any legislation which seeks to increase aid.
Figures have been given for improvements under Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and we are giving an extra £35 million. I still want to know whether it is deliberate Government policy to switch support from the deficiency payments system and general support policy to specifically production grants.
As I argued on Second Reading, and in Committee, if we had gone into the Common Market we could still have paid specifically production grants, because Dr. Mansholt is on record as saying that, in the Community itself and in other countries outside the Community, production grants are an essential feature of agricultural policy. I have always argued, and have tried to convince even some of my hon. Friends on both sides of this House, that they are an essential feature of our industry because they enable the Government to speed up policy and take administrative action where required. Production grants covered by this Bill are therefore important.
Clause 1 is an important part of the Bill. Here there is another increase of £3 million which is in addition to the £27 million previously agreed to. The schemes, of course, will come to an end in 1963, but I should still like to know what is Government policy on what we term comprehensiveness. Will more than one farm be included in one particular scheme? Can grant aid be given in this way? I am anxious to encourage co-operation between farmers, and Clause 1, in a small way, could be used for that purpose.
Clause 2 extends the period of the payment of subsidies for hill sheep and cattle. We have accepted this. The Minister revealed on Second Reading that there would be a survey of our hill areas. I am still uncertain about what this survey will achieve, when it will be reported and how responsible the body charged with the task will be. We are all anxious to see our hill farmers succeed.
Today we have 400,000 cows in regular breeding herds in the hill and upland areas. The number of ewes in the hill areas is 4½ million and 5 million. These areas need help. We all know what the


uplands farmers have had to put up with from the weather recently. There could have been a crisis in that part of the industry. Thus, Clause 2, which seeks to extend the period of payment of subsidies to improve our upland regions, has the support of the Opposition.
Clause 3 is one of the most important. It seeks to extend the provisions of the Farm Improvements Scheme. Here again, I should like to know whether it is deliberate Government policy to encourage amalgamations. I do not believe in enforced amalgamations. Here we are dealing with small farms. Some people take the view that small farmers should be driven out, and compensated. I do not accept that viewpoint.
Our small farmers should be encouraged. We should also, through financial assistance under Clause 3, encourage them to amalgamate. I resent the policy, which is advocated by some people who, I believe, do not know the industry, that small men should be driven out. These people claim that small farmers are inefficient and that their holdings cannot be viable units. But I remind these individuals that most of our farms are under 50 acres.
We have a total of nearly 525,000 farms—316,000 in England, 55,000 in Wales, 71,000 in Scotland and 81,000 in Northern Ireland. The majority are under 50 acres. It is entirely the professional economists attached to agriculture and rich business farmers who argue that now we have to face the challenge of not being in the Common Market we should tackle the small farmer. I do not accept this.
I assert that the small farmers must be encouraged. Indeed, some of them are more efficient than some large farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) has reported on the contribution which the small farmers in Wales have made. Will the Government make Clause 3 work? Will they encourage amalgamations? I recently read an interesting article by Professor Thomas, Professor of Agricultural Economics at Reading University, dealing with the amalgamation of small farms. The article appeared in 1961 in Lloyds Bank Review and I shall not read it in detail since so many hon. Members wish to speak. But I commend it to hon. Gentlemen.
We must encourage amalgamations. I trust that that line will be pursued by this Government and by the next Government when there is a change. Clause 3 must be used. We are anxious that co-operative enterprises should also he encouraged under it.
I thank the Minister for the assurance he has given under Clause 4. I will not deal with that in detail, but will leave it to some of my colleagues. I welcome Clause 6 which gives grants towards the construction of certain buildings used by farmers' machinery syndicates. We had an extremely interesting debate on this subject in Standing Committee. Many small farmers in different parts of the country, including my own County of Cumberland, and Westmorland, are forming syndicates. We must encourage co-operation and this provision will help small farmers.
I remind the Minister of an interesting article which appeared in the Farming Express. I know that the Farming Express has been rather critical of Government policy—and why not?—but I was delighted on Thursday to see the headline:
Britain's small farmers have a future
The way ahead for 120,000
Efficiency can mean prosperity".
The article asked:
Are Britain's small farmers finished? Have they no future, other than bankruptcy or other employment? The answer is 'No'.
It was given yesterday by Mr. W. E. Jones, head of Britain's farm advisory service, at the National Power Farming Conference at Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.
I congratulate the Farming Express on defending the small farmer, and I hope that the Minister will remember what one of his own advisory officers has said. The way ahead for 120,000 small farmers is to combine and to form machinery syndicates and so on.
Clause 8 has not been mentioned in detail this evening, but it is very important. It deals with grants to bodies promoting co-operation in agriculture and horticulture. We welcome any aid given to the Agricultural Central Cooperative Association and its Welsh equivalent, the Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society. I asked in Committee whether this provision would be given any priority. We link it with Clause 9 which provides for grants for


the promotion of efficient marketing. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) is a chairman of a very important committee which will receive grant aid under this scheme.
Are the Government in earnest about this matter? Will they encourage research, or will this be something lost, a promise made and nothing fulfilled? The Government have not been very sympathetic towards orderly marketing. I always keep with me the 1953 White Paper on the decontrol of food and marketing and agricultural policy. It reminds me of the failure of the Conservative régime to do anything. I never thought that hon. Members opposite would welcome a Government initiative in this respect, for they have always said that we must leave it to the industry. However, the time has now come when the Minister and his colleagues must take greater initiative.
We had an interesting debate on winter keep grants under Clause 10. We support the Clause and we link it with grassland renovation grants.
Clause 14 deals with the distribution of fowl pest vaccine at subsidised prices. We welcome the Clause which flows from the recommendations of the Plant Committee. I have the honour to be the president of the Poultry and Egg Producers' Association of Great Britain and we have responded to the Minister's campaign. The Minister made an interesting reply yesterday to his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) about the effectiveness of the campaign. I expect that farmers will read that reply carefully, because we still have a long way to go to reach our goal, which is that every bird must be a vaccinated bird. I know that responsible sections of the industry will respond to the Minister's campaign for effective control against fowl pest. The provisions of this Clause must be vigorously pursued.
I now come to one of the most controversial provisions of the Bill, Clause 17, the dissolution of the Agricultural Land Commission. The Government have acted for doctrinaire reasons. The Land Commission was set up by the Labour Government in 1947 and Sections 68 to 70 of the Agriculture Act, 1947,

laid down how the Commission should be administered. There was also a Welsh Sub-Commission. Hon. Members opposite have always been hostile towards the Commission. The Parliamentary Secretary was not an hon. Member at that time, but if he reads carefully the debates of the time, he will see that many hon. Members opposite were not sympathetic towards those provisions of the 1947 Act.
There were others, like an hon. Member who became Minister of Agriculture in a Conservative Administration, who thought that the provisions were reasonable, but most hon. Members opposite were hostile. They argued that the State was seeking to farm. But the purpose of the Commission, as the then Minister explained, was to manage land which could not be farmed privately, land which could be farmed only if the State intervened or provided the necessary capital. We argued that this was necessary because there were vast tracts of land which needed to be brought into effective cultivation.
Ever since then, hon. Members opposite have disliked the Commission. They have disliked several parts of the 1947 Act, including county committees and even Part I of the Act which dealt with security and assured markets and so on. They have paid lip service to the 1947 Act, and have not dared completely to dismantle it, but they brought in the 1957 legislation which weakened it and Clause 17 of the Bill is the culmination of that policy.
The Land Commission still bad a job to do. It could have undertaken experimental research. Professor Thomas' interesting article refers to the famous Yetminster Report which the Commission prepared in 1952. There was a report which sought to provide an experimental scheme for the readjustments of farm boundaries, a report which was never put into operation. There have also been important reports from the Welsh Sub-Commission.
This work was important and I regret that the Minister has ended the Commission. It could have been a useful part of our administration of agriculture and could have been an important part of our policy. It is too late to change the


matter now. I regret it, but the Government have decided. I think that it is a grave mistake.
We also have Clauses dealing with notice to quit and allowances payable to persons who have been displaced from agriculture. We welcome these Clauses.
I come, lastly, to another disputed Clause which affects some of my hon. Friends, that dealing with the Irish Sugar Agreement. I know how some of my hon. Friends feel about this. They expressed themselves forcefully in Committee. They were rightly worried about the state of employment in refineries in this country, particularly in Greenock. I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), and I would expect him to express his point of view.

Mr. William Ross: He did not get a chance.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend was not a member of the Standing Committee.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross: Exactly.

Mr. Peart: I did not know that my hon. Friend was interested in agriculture generally, although I knew that he was interested in this Clause. Many of my hon. Friends who are interested in agriculture were not on the Standing Committee. Perhaps if the Committee had been a larger one he could have been selected to serve on it.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirling-shire): Perhaps my hon. Friend would tell us how it is possible to get on to an agricultural Standing Committee such as the one which considered this Bill.

Mr. Peart: From his experience in the House my hon. Friend must know how Members are selected to serve on Standing Committees. Often we have great difficulty in getting Members to serve on them. The Members of this Standing Committee were not selected by me. There was no attempt to put my hon. Friend off from being a member of it. Indeed, we were glad that his point of view was ventilated, and I sought to encourage it by suggesting that we should have a free vote, although I took a contrary view. I tried to assess what effect this would have on employment,

and I am not convinced that firms like Tate and Lyle have a good case.
I take the view that the Clause will help our Commonwealth producers. I argued this in Committee. I think that we have here a pledge given by the Minister. I want to have good relations with Eire. We have an obligation there. I do not regard Eire as a hostile country, as some people suggest it is. I want friendly relations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. They are not in the same position as France and other countries. They are our friends, and, as I said in Standing Committee, I sit on the Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The Irish representatives sit with us. We regard them as our friends and colleagues, and I am sorry that Eire is not in the Commonwealth. Perhaps with wise statesmanship she will be one day.
I support anything which will encourage the making of arrangements which are satisfactory to all concerned. I also support anything which will ensure that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement succeeds, and I am sure that the decision of the Government of the Republic of Ireland to take sugar from Commonwealth sources rather than from France and Cuba and other parts of the world is the right one. I do not accept the view that this will be harmful to our country.
Obviously some people have doubts about this, and no doubt will express their views, but the key to this is that under the agreement imports of refined sugar from Southern Ireland to Northern Ireland are to be restricted to about 2,500 tons below the figure of imports in recent years. This restriction is there, and for those reasons I hope that this Sugar Agreement will work well and will not harm our British refineries, nor the people in the industry, but will in the end encourage our Commonwealth producers, and also promote good relations with Eire.
For those reasons, I welcome the Bill. We may criticise some of the details of it, and we may criticise the Government's administration of it, but the Bill is a good one. It is a tidying-up Bill which will help to make the farm structure better. It will provide aid where it is needed, particularly in the upland areas. It will encourage farm improvement schemes to


work more efficiently, and, broadly, it will help the industry. For those reasons we welcome it.

8.15 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent: There are just one or two points I should like to make on the Bill before it leaves the House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward this useful Measure which, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) pointed out, has much of value in it.
My first point concerns Clauses 8 and 9, which enable my right hon. Friend to make schemes to encourage farmers to conduct research in marketing and developments in marketing. Although this seems an obvious development, it is a new one on which my right hon. Friend is to be warmly congratulated. It is one which he brought in during the last Agricultural Price Review. It gives a farmer a grant to encourage him, when he is planning the production on his farm, to think about the consumer who will consume his produce at the end of the day. This, although it is the logical thing to do, is contrary to the general tradition of farmers, who normally concentrate their energy and attention on the actual production of the produce of their farms and reckon that when it leaves the farm gate other people look after it.
That traditional attitude does not meet the situation today. They are too much at the mercy of the market if they follow those lines, and this is a valuable development which enables grants to be given to farmers, or groups of farmers, who wish to make research into the market into which they are to sell their produce, and also gives grants for farming groups or co-operatives of farmers to grade, present, and collect their produce into the most marketable form. It is a first-class idea, and, as has been mentioned, I have been fortunate enough to be asked to be chairman of the committee which is administering the scheme for the National Farmers' Union and a very interesting job it is.
This is a new thought to most of the farming world. There are pioneers both in horticulture and agriculture who are doing this, but the majority have not thought about it much, so that we on this committee have a pioneering job to do

to get farmers to be aware of our existence and aware of the need to do this and make use of the grants which we can give them for their benefit.
It has occurred to me that, my right hon. Friend having spotted this gap in the agricultural economy and having decided to help out in this way, it might be necessary to go a step further to get continuity of thought in this field and set up a Chair of Agricultural Marketing where fundamental thought can be given to this essential part of the agricultural economy. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this point.
My second point is a somewhat critical one. It concerns Clause 14, touched on by the hon. Member for Workington in connection with the subsidised supplies of fowl pest vaccine. Yesterday my right hon. Friend gave the figures of vaccination up to date in the country. It appears that only about 25 per cent, of our poultry flocks are at present vaccinated. At the end of next month the present system of slaughter and compensation comes to an end, and the sole protection of our many tens of millions of birds will be vaccination. This leaves only six weeks in which the balance of our birds can be vaccinated, and, obviously, it is a matter of the gravest urgency to get this enormous number of birds vaccinated.
There are two points I should like to make to my right hon. Friend in this connection. Of course, it is for the industry to make use of this valuable offer of the subsidised vaccine and to cooperate much more rapidly than it has been doing so far, but there are rumours, especially in the North and Lancashire, that this vaccine is not fully effective in the face of heavy infection.
I am not a veterinary expert, and I do not know whether that is the case or not, but I know from practical observation of the process of vaccination that it is a fairly expert job. The vaccine loses its efficacy if it is kept at either too high or too low a temperature, and I should think that many farmers do not realise that. The process of vaccinating with a syringe is fairly simple, but there are certain straightforward rules of hygiene—such as boiling the syringe, and keeping it in good working order—which must be observed. I doubt whether the majority of poultry farmers understand


these rudimentary rules of the process of vaccination.
It may be that where breakdowns have occurred after the poultry on a farm has been vaccinated they have occurred because the vaccine was not in good order, or because the vaccination was not properly done and the birds did not receive the immunity which they should have.
I suggest that, at this stage, anyhow, the Minister ought to get some more demonstrations going throughout the country, so that poultry farmers can see just how the process of vaccination should be carried out—how they can observe simple rules and get going the drill by which large numbers of birds can be handled in quite a short time. Unless there is a sufficiently good voluntary response which makes vaccination general among our poultry farmers my right hon. Friend will have to consider a scheme of compulsory vaccination. We cannot allow our flocks to be exposed to an epidemic sweeping through the country and causing enormous losses to our poultry farmers, besides upsetting our supply of eggs and poultry meat.
The urgency of the problem is shown by the fact that only a quarter of our flocks have been vaccinated. I ask my right hon. Friend to note the extreme urgency of the situation. I know that he has sent notices to all our poultry farmers, but more than that is needed. We need demonstrations by expert teams throughout the country. I ask him to watch the situation, and to make sure that if, during the next six weeks, he does not get a much better response than he has got to date he will make preparations for a compulsory scheme and for sending out his own teams, who will have to do a very big job. The present position cannot be regarded as fully satisfactory, although the Minister's part of the provision has been a generous one.
I do not want to end on a note of criticism. Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend for what he is doing for the industry in this very valuable Bill, and I hope that the House will be able to speed it on its way.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. G. Roberts: The Bill does a number of very useful things, especially for the

small farmers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has referred. Wales has a higher proportion of farms under 50 acres in extent than has the United Kingdom as a whole. I believe that 60 per cent. of our farms are under 50 acres each. Therefore, many of the Bill's provisions are bound to affect them. But the Bill leaves open the all-important question of the long-term agriculture policy of the Government, especially in view of the failure of the Common Market negotiations, into which I do not propose to go, except to suggest that it is vital that a well-thought-out policy of new guarantees should be presented to the farming community without undue delay. There is acute anxiety and uncertainty in the countryside.
In the Second Reading debate, the Minister said that the Government's policy was to switch from price supports to production grants. The Bill carries out that policy. But although I might be in favour of a certain amount of movement from price supports to production grants, I am bound to ask whether the emphasis on increased production is sufficient without a properly thought out marketing policy.
This is what is absent from the Bill. The various provisions for voluntary association, and financial and other encouragement by the central Government, are not enough, although we approve them. To the extent that the Bill encourages marketing co-operatives and other forms of co-operation it is to be welcomed, but the Bill relies unduly upon purely voluntary action. The inertia in the countryside and in the fanning community, although admirable in some respects, is perhaps a little dangerous in others.
I should have liked to see a provision in the Bill for the initiative to be taken by the Minister, through his officers and agencies, to encourage groups of farmers to engage in schemes of co-operation and even amalgamation. Here I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington in denouncing the wholesale proposals for the amalgamation of small farms regardless of the conditions obtaining in various parts of the country. The amalgamation of these small units must proceed on a voluntary basis, helped by expert opinion and solid


inducements to co-operate. Without those it could be a tyranny and a threat of the first order to social cohesion in rural areas.
The Bill, as it has emerged from Committee, shows that the Government have adhered to their purely doctrinaire decision to dissolve the Land Commission and the Welsh Sub-Commission. There is no other reason for the action of the Government, except the narrowest doctrinaire prejudice against any form of State action in this great industry. In the Second Reading debate the Minister said that as the total amount of land held by the two Commissions had declined from 250,000 acres to 100,000 acres, and was still declining, the need for these commissions would cease. Hon. Members on this side of the House have said that the need should not be measured by the amount of land held by the Commissions at any given moment; it should be measured by the amount of land which, for various reasons, from time to time cannot be managed, let alone developed, by private initiative. When the two Commissions were first set up, apart from war-held land there was little land for them to manage.
It may well be that in the years to come land will become available from various sources to agencies such as the Commissions which these bodies could manage and develop. One useful function with which the Welsh Sub-Commission was charged was as agent of the Minister to maintain and, indeed, greatly to improve large estates such as the Glanllyn Estate in Merioneth comprising over 36,000 acres. That land was surrendered in lieu of death duty. Circumstances might again arise sooner or later when estates, because of the difficulty of paying the duty in cash, might surrender land. What agency will the Minister have, either in England or in Wales, which would be able to receive such land and to manage and develop it? By the abolition of these Commissions the right hon. Gentleman is leaving himself without such an instrument.
What about the reclamation of land which is not in the least likely to be recovered by private enterprise? There are large areas of land which, so far, private initiative has found it impossible to reclaim. The capital cost is completely

prohibitive even in these days of wildly inflated land values and notional returns. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) could tell the House about large tracts of land in the Tregaron area which cannot be reclaimed by private initiative for that reason. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) could indicate in his constituency a large marsh which cannot be reclaimed for the same reason.
In other parts of Wales, and in the Fens and the Romney Marshes and other parts of England, there is land which needs to be reclaimed, and must be reclaimed. But it will never be reclaimed in this tight little land-hungry island by private enterprise. If he abolishes these two Commissions what agency has the Minister which would be able to undertake that task? When Lord Williams—Tom Williams, as he then was—was Minister of Agriculture he said that that was one of the highest priorities in the duties of these two Commissions.
The Commissions would seem to me to be exactly the right agencies to carry out experimental work which neither the Ministry nor the universities nor the agriculture colleges can properly conduct. This Bill provides an impetus for machinery syndicates and for other forms of agricultural co-operation. These Commissions could perform an extremely useful function in promoting pilot schemes in that respect. What is the use of providing, in this otherwise very useful Bill, encouragement for machinery co-operation when comparatively little is known about how to operate such co-operatives in this country? As Lord Williams envisaged, and as was agreed at the time by hon. Members opposite, it is obvious that Commissions of this sort could operate these schemes and show our people how most effectively such syndicates and co-operatives could work.
Finally, did the Minister consider the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington regarding the excellent reports prepared through the activities of these Commissions and, in particular, of the Welsh Sub-Commission? I have particularly in mind the Report of the Sub-Commission regarding Mid-Wales which was published in 1955.


That was one of the best statements on economic geography ever published. It was even distributed to schools as an educational paper of the first quality. By abolishing these Commissions the Minister will be abolishing bodies which have a specific interest, knowledge and technique regarding the provision of facts and practical suggestions which might lead to the solution of the age-old problems of depopulation and of sub-marginal farming in areas like Mid-Wales. The Minister is throwing away an instrument which could be of great utility to him, to the farming community and to the country generally. He has produced no valid reason for doing so. We are forced to conclude that his only reason is one of doctrinaire prejudice.
The Bill will kill the Commissions. It will do so only temporarily, I am confident, because they have sure hope of resurrection under a Government who really care for the countryside and wish to pursue a truly progressive agricultural policy in place of the present policy of despair.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Prior: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) into the intricacies of the Welsh Sub-Commission, except to say that after the war we needed food desperately from all sources from which we could obtain it, whereas now the production of food off some of the land in the hands of the Welsh Sub-Commission would certainly not be economic under any circumstances. I support the Government in making the changes that they have made. It is also true that the Welsh Sub-Commission cost a great deal of money. It put up buildings on farms which have been rather more glorified than the farms could support. The Government have been quite right gradually to run down the Commission's activities and now to disband them altogether.
I wish to take issue with the hon. Member and with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on the idea that the Government are trying to swing the method of support away from the general subsidy on to the production grant. I cannot see any great evidence for this understanding by hon. Members. If I thought that that was the case, I would resist it very strongly. I think that the

production grants have become, and are becoming even more, too much a method by which the Government can pump money into the industry regardless of how much good that does. One can quote definite examples of subsidies which do nothing to help the basic needs of the industry and which are merely a way of pumping money into it. The calf subsidy comes readily to mind under that heading.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on Clause 3, which deals with additional money for improvement schemes. That is quite the most valuable scheme and production grant which has been given to the farmer since the war. The fact that money which should have lasted for ten years, has run out after about six years shows how valuable this has been to the farming industry. Wherever one goes, whether into Wales or East Anglia, one can see the good results of this money in farm improvement schemes. My right hon. Friend deserves great credit for pushing the Treasury into advancing a further sum of money.
The hon. Member for Workington dealt on the question of the small farm. He said that he could not follow the logic behind some people's arguments for trying to decry the part the small farmer plays and his future rôle in British agriculture. On the whole, I agree with him in those sentiments. That held good for probably about 90 per cent. of small farmers in the same manner as it probably holds good for about 90 per cent. of big farmers. It is not always the big farmer who is a good farmer; it is very much a question of the managing ability of the individual.
The hon. Member said that he thought it would be necessary to use powers granted under the 1957 Act and follow them up with the powers in Clause 3 of this Bill in regard to amalgamation. With that, I also agree. It is necessary to try to help small farmers voluntarily to amalgamate wherever possible. That would help many farmers. It is not possible to see how otherwise it could be brought about. I cannot see that the powers to help amalgamation, however, are as great as they should be. Although one wants to help the small farmer, one may not be helping him to eke out an existence on his present holding. There are a great many of the older small


farmers, the over 60s, who are finding things rather tough. I would not hesitate to say that I would like to see in future legislation something done to help these people to get off the land if they want to go.
I think that that would be sound legislation and a far fairer way of helping them than probably by some of the production grants which enable them just to keep alive, but which do not enable them to enjoy the standard of living that everyone has come to expect in Britain in 1963.
For a number of them this is a problem which we have to face. It is added to by the fact that there are a great many young men waiting to go on to the land who are prepared to work very hard on small holdings and make a living out of them as a stepping stone to something better, but who are at present prevented from getting on to the land which they ought to be farming.
I want to mention Clause 6, which deals with making improvement grants to machinery syndicates, and so on. In Committee, my hon. Friend said that the grants for these improvements would take into consideration any milling and mixing that needed to be carried out or that farmers wanted to be carried out in those premises. I hope that he will impress upon his N.A.A.S. officers the very great importance that this could have for small farmers. At present, the cost of compound feedingstuffs mixed by the farmer himself is between £4 and £6 a ton lower than if he had placed it through a compound feedingstuffs' manufacturer. Here is one very quick way in which the smaller farmer could save himself a great deal of money. I hope that my hon. Friend will try to push this as much as he possibly can.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) spoke about Clauses 8 and 9 which deal with the agricultural marketing development committee. I wish as well to give this my wholehearted support. It got off to a slow start but I think that many farmers would want to use it and ought to use it and the sooner they know about it the better.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend for the promise that he has given with regard to Clause 20. I am satisfied with the answer that he has given that the

Minister of Housing and Local Government will be sending a circular to all local authorities.
I am not so happy about Clause 22. When my right hon. Friend said earlier that no doubt the Irish sugar producers suffered as a result of the agreement of 1st January, 1962, I have no doubt that he was correct in saying that, but to my mind it is only because they were in an advantageous position before, and all that that agreement did was to put them back where they should have been. I cannot see any reason why the Irish Sugar Agreement should have been put into this Bill or why we should have reached it with the Irish in the first place.

Mr. Hoy: If the hon. Gentleman feels like that about it, why did he not vote against it in Committee?

Mr. Prior: Because I felt that my Amendment was not a very satisfactory one, and I decided to abstain on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" as the hon. Gentleman knows. I have not been entirely convinced by the arguments put forward.
However, I do not want to end on a sour note. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the way he conducted the proceedings in Standing Committee and on the courtesy he has shown to hon. Members in all our proceedings on the Bill. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) has not been able to take part in the later stages of the Bill. He certainly enlivened the Committee stage whilst he was with us. I know that he would like to see the Bill passed into law without delay. We welcome the Bill. It will be a useful Measure, designed to help agriculture in what will be difficult days, but there is no need for agriculture to despair. With this Bill on the Statute Book, and with the 1957 Act there as well, I have no doubt that the future of agriculture is reasonably secure.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin: I underline the point made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I, too. am sorry that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) is not with us tonight,


his absence being due to illness. He made his contribution in Committee. We all wish him well.
I have not found much to agree with in the debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did an exceptionally good job in Committee. It is not much good my hon. Friend repeating and repeating that this is a good Bill after we spent so many hours in Committee trying to persuade the Minister that we ought to improve it and make it into a good Bill. One of the features of tonight's debate is the absence of the farmers. On Second Reading they were all here pleading the cause, but they are few and far between tonight. It may well be true that there is some advantage to be given to the farming community by the introduction of the Bill. It will receive another £35 million in subsidies. I am not against subsidies as such, but I believe that, if we are to pay subsidies as outlined in the Bill, before the Minister can expect the House to agree to them he ought at least to make a case as to why they should be given.
I made some very strong criticisms of one Clause which has not got anything at all to do with agriculture. I refer to Clause 4. I believe, to use the figures which have already been given, that we are proposing among other things to pay £20,000 in the form of subsidies to growers of mushrooms on land other than agricultural land. This is a dog's breakfast of a Bill, because although its title is Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill it deals with other than agricultural matters. It introduces in a new departure subsidies for somebody doing something on other than agricultural land. It proceeds to give £150,000 per year of the British taxpayers' money to the Irish Sugar Corporation. The Minister, when moving the Third Reading, made all sorts of calculations as to why the British sugar consumer should give subsidies to the Irish Sugar Corporation, which is virtually the Eire Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington asked why we should not do this. After all, he said, we are friendly towards Ireland. I realise, of course, that we are talking about Ireland and not France or Cuba. But if that is the basis on which we are going to give subsidies—because we are friendly to a nation and, therefore, the British

taxpayer must subsidise it—then heaven help the day when we get complete universal brotherhood. In giving assistance to friendly nations we might find ourselves spending more on subsidies than we are on armaments.—[HON. MEMBERS: "A good idea."] It may be a good idea, but I do not see why we should of necessity give subsidies which must come out of the British taxpayers' purse simply because we are friendly towards it.
I return to the question of mushrooms, a favourite subject of mine. I recall that in a previous debate the suggestion was made by one hon. Member that British agriculture has reached the stage where it had been suggested that if a subsidy were given for growing grapes on Ben Nevis the farming industry would grow them there.

Mr. Peart: It was a stupid statement.

Mr. Loughlin: Was it?

Mr. Peart: It was. I recall that I was interrupted by an hon. Member who made that statement. I say that it was stupid because it distorts the position. We do not justify subsidies of that nature, nor does anyone in the industry, and that sort of statement does a good deal of harm to the industry, for all subsidies are carefully considered and such statements should not be taken seriously.

Mr. Loughlin: One is entitled to one's opinion about that. It is perfectly true that all forms of subsidies which go to the farming community or anyone else are carefully considered. But what sort of careful consideration would my hon. Friend the Member for Workington imagine was given to the suggestion that we should give £20,000 a year to growers of mushrooms on other than agricultural land? This is subsidies gone mad. It is not a question of giving assistance to farmers, small or large. This needs a great deal of understanding and we have really not had any explanation of it.
In Standing Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said that at present farmers can secure subsidies of this kind as long as they have bought the requisite minimum amount of fertiliser. The Government then discovered that an anomaly existed. They discovered that while a certain group of farmers could get the subsidy another group was unable to do


so. If there is a case for giving agricultural subsidies, then at least 50 per cent. of that case is based on the difficulties peculiar to agriculture, that it is an industry which is subjected to the elements.
However, the people who will get the mushroom subsidy are not confronted with such difficulties because mushrooms grow in large corrugated sheds. They are grown, in the main—and this is where the £20,000 of taxpayers' money will go—by people who are growing them for commercial purposes. The mushrooms will be made into ketchup and mushroom soup. We have now got to a position in which we are prepared to spend £20,000 almost every year to give mushroom canners a subsidy on the basis of the first process they undertake. I confess that it is beyond me. If it is not these people, I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to say who will receive this money.
I want to make it perfectly clear, because I do not want there to be any dubiety about it, that in this Clause we are dealing with the payment of subsidy for the growing of mushrooms other than on agricultural land, and it is to that specific issue that I want the hon. Gentleman to address himself. It cannot be the farmers, because the farmers, whether they were small or large, would qualify, as they would be operating on agricultural land.
If it is not the canners—who is it? Is it to be argued that simply on the basis of an alleged anomaly we can give to people who do not need any assistance moneys out of the public purse? If the hon. Gentleman claims that there are some who have been the victims of an anomaly and are not in receipt of a subsidy that other people are getting, it is incumbent on him, first, to tell the House what kind of people these were. Having done that, it would still be incumbent on him to make out a case on the basis of the economic difficulties with which they are now faced, or with which they might be faced in the future—because there can be no justification at all for the payment from the public purse of moneys in the form of subsidies unless there is an economic basis for that payment now or in the future.
I am a little tired of these people who talk about private enterprise. With every new idea that crops up they pick up a Bill, and say, "Ah, this is a good idea.
The Government are to grant for A, B, C and D." That is the state of mind they get into. Hon. Members opposite who talk about private enterprise then have the audacity in debate after debate to talk about Government grants and Government subsidies. They must have two little compartments in their minds which enable them first to talk about the virtues of private enterprise and then, when it is to their advantage, to talk about Government assistance to private enterprise as well.

Mr. Prior: Is the hon. Member suggesting that agriculture should be nationalised?

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member gets inane ideas and then trots them out and exposes himself. Nobody is talking about nationalisation. If nationalisation were the only alternative to private enterprise there would be validity in his argument, but it is not. In any case, it comes ill from him to suggest that there is something wrong with nationalisation. His Government have just nationalised Bailey's in Malta and renationalised Whitehead's. Why does he want to worry about nationalisation?
I was talking about mushrooms. I was saying that there should be an economic argument for an application for subsidy, but there does not appear to have been any application in this case. This is one of those almost unique experiences we have from time to time where nobody has asked for something, no lobby has been produced and no case has been made out but where the Minister has discovered an anomaly and intends to redress it. I asked the Minister what lobby was involved and all he had to say was that the National Farmers' Union welcomed this proposal. But that is completely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the N.F.U., because this is something other than a farming subsidy.
Who produced this idea? Who approached the Minister and said that there was an anomaly which should be redressed? Who brought this matter forward? If the Minister tells us who it was, then I would ask on what ground it was argued that there should be a subsidy. Or is the position now that provided someone discovers an anomaly and approaches the Minister he is fully prepared to give subsidies?
This is a shocking state of affairs. I am quite serious about it. When hon. Members opposite criticise, time and time again, the people whom I represent as a trade union official, people in the lower income brackets who are in receipt of council house subsidies, I resent this business of paying out money from the public purse for no apparent reason.
The Minister has a great deal of explaining to do. I know that one of the peculiar things about the House is that anybody can come here and initiate the whole basis of subsidies as Ministers of the Crown or as junior Ministers and can receive in a private capacity substantial sums from the public purse at the same time. It is a serious state of affairs. Anyone who speaks in this debate and who is in receipt of subsidies as a farmer ought to be made to declare his interest in the first place. I mean nothing personal here, and I hope that nobody will take it so. There is a general principle involved. It is wrong that Ministers of the Crown, whether they be senior or junior Ministers, should be allowed to stay in office while, at the same time, they receive in their private capacities substantial moneys from the public purse, often through the Departments in which they are Ministers.
I turn now to another aspect of the Bill. The Government have pursued a policy of getting rid of land. We had some fascinating arguments about this in Committee. Some hon. Members opposite argued that what had happened was this. The Commissions were set up so that they could take unto themselves land which was of no value, which was completely derelict. They then rehabilitated it, pouring public funds into it for that purpose. Therefore, so it is argued, it is logical that the land should be sold back to private enterprise. That was the sort of argument used in Committee. It is the logical development of the policy of hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
During the Second Reading debate, we raised the question of what would happen to certain tenants when land was disposed of as envisaged under the Bill. On 21st November, 1962, after having been interrogated by one of my hon. Friends about what would happen to the sitting tenants who were farming land which would be

passed to the Forestry Commission, the Minister said:
When the land is handed over to the Forestry Commission, and trees are planted, it will no longer be farmed.
Brilliant,
But that is nothing new. It has happened before, and the situation is known to the tenants".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1244.]
According to a rough calculation which we were able to make there were 40,000 or 50,000 acres involved in this case. The number may be small, but there are people involved. There are small farmers involved. Before the Bill is given a Third Reading, the House should have a definite assurance that the interests of those small farmers will be looked at before the land is passed to the Forestry Commission.
I am not criticising the Forestry Commission, and I want no one to imagine that I am. But if these people are to lose their farms because the Government propose to dispose of the land previously held by the Land Commission to the Forestry Commission, then they should have the fullest possible safeguards against being moved from the farms which they hold.
Most hon. Members have finished their speeches by saying, "I do not want to end on a critical note". I am delighted to end on a critical note. Certain features of the Bill are very good, but other features of it are very bad and certainly have not been explained.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I commence by assuring the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that, like himself, I have no interest in moneys which will be paid under the Bill. I had intended to restrict my remarks to the provisions of Clause 22, but, since we have so very few opportunities to discuss agriculture in the House and, as time seems to be no object, I am tempted to make one or two brief remarks about small farmers.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said that he did not believe in a theoretical economic optimum size for a farm. That is a lovely theoretical belief. There is an optimum size to a farm from which a man can earn a decent living. I know thousands of small farmers. The whole of my constituency is made up of


small farmers. I do not know one small farmer who has not a very fair idea of what the optimum size of a farm should be, and it is nearly always larger than his own farm. The optimum size which will give a family a decent return from the hours of work which they put into the farm and the capital invested in it is something well over 50 acres.
At the same time, I would never support any proposal to put a small farmer off his land so that it could be amalgamated. On the other hand, there is a strong possibility that in the process of time—I hope that the provisions in this Bill will be added to by future Bills to make this more likely—there will be more and more amalgamations of land. When there is no son to succeed and a farm comes on the market, it may be possible for the neighbours who march with that farm either to divide it up among themselves or for one neighbour to take it over.
This is the type of provision that we want. Let us get out of our heads silly ideas that small farmers are the salt of the earth. The small farmer is a magnificent person, but he would be much better if he were a slightly larger farmer. We want to look, as the Bill does, for ways which will enable the small farmer to become a larger farmer, and particularly a farmer with a bigger income.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I am following the hon. Gentleman with interest. Does he mean that, so far as the operation of the Bill relates to this point, he is against allowing a farm to pass into the hands of the highest bidder and would rather have a criterion based on experience and suitability and not just leave the farm to be disposed of in the open market? That is a very important question.

Mr. Clark: Not so much the highest bidder, but the neighbour should be given an edge when it comes to bidding and should be given a margin of assistance so that he can compete with the highest bidder. I do not think that it is necessary in many cases to expend public money for this. It might be possible to make some reduction in Stamp Duty or make some other provision.
I should like to pass from that point. It has been said that the farming industry was locking with terror to the future

and wanted some assurance from the Government. I would not for a moment try to speak for all the farmers in the United Kingdom. That would be a terrifying job, and no one would ever quite accept it. But the farmers with whom I am in touch are not in the least frightened of the future. They are confident that they can compete with the future. One thing which has emerged from the negotiations which have been carried on in the last eighteen months, and as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has discovered, is that farmers have had the opportunity of looking at themselves very much more carefully than they have done before.
Had it been suggested two years ago that our system of farming subsidies would be radically reformed, there would have been great opposition among the farmers. I can speak for my own part of the country by saying that most farmers recognise the shortcomings of the present system and believe that change is coming. We do not want sudden change without adequate thought, but there is undoubtedly room for changes and for evolution of the system. I believe that it is time when rather more of the costs of food should be passed on to the consumer rather than that the farmer should be burdened with the incubus of a huge bill for subsidies for which he is always blamed. Listening to some people, one would almost believe that the farmer was living off the rest of the country.
I pass now to Clause 22. No representative from Northern Ireland served on the Standing Committee. Coming from Northern Ireland—I shall take a fairly parochial view of the Clause—I should like to say that we welcome the agreement on sugar between the United Kingdom and Southern Ireland. An agreement is made essential by the two facts that Southern Ireland has in the fairly recent past become a net exporter of her own sugar production and that for some time she has received Commonwealth preference.
If Southern Ireland is a net exporter of sugar and receives Commonwealth preference, it has been essential to reach some sort of agreement. I see the agreement as bringing the South of Ireland, generally speaking, within the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This—and we are accustomed to it—is more evidence


of the heavy economic dependence and integration that exists between Southern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
In Northern Ireland, we almost invariably welcome agreements and legislation that will liberalise trade between the Republic and Northern Ireland, because we in Northern Ireland are always up against the heavy tariff wall which Southern Ireland has set up since the 1930s. The trouble about the agreement, however—generally, I am in favour of it—is that on the whole, it does not liberalise trade between the United Kingdom and Southern Ireland. It certainly does not liberalise it between Northern and Southern Ireland.
The agreement maintains Southern Ireland's almost complete monopoly position on sugar and sugar-containing products. We in Northern Ireland have a large soft drinks industry. We have a small and, at present, not entirely successful confectionery industry. As far as I can see, they will be incapable of exporting to Southern Ireland sugar-containing products. If I am mistaken, I shall be glad to be corrected by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary. Secretary.
Again, the agreement seems to be slightly illiberal because our right to import sugar from Southern Ireland, if we so desire—and we have imported something like 13,000 tons over the last year or so—is now restricted to 10,000 tons a year. That is a sop to nobody except the refiners at Greenock and Liverpool, who have for many years regarded Northern Ireland as an area to which they have the divine right to sell sugar. Why we must buy sugar from across the water, particularly if we can get better terms from Southern Ireland, I cannot understand.
Only within the last few weeks, the Irish Sugar Corporation working from Carlow has made provision for supplying sugar in bulk direct to our jam factory in Northern Ireland. Our old traditional suppliers for generations have never even thought of this. If we want to import sugar from Southern Ireland, we should have the right to do so. I ask the Minister how much consultation he had with Northern Irish interests before he came to this clause in the agreement.
There is another point on which I do not think we made as good a bargain with

Southern Ireland as we could have done. No one is more delighted than I am that the Government have arranged that 200 acres of sugar beet trials should be undertaken in Northern Ireland and that the processing should be done by the Southern Ireland Sugar Corporation. We shall know in a year or two whether sugar beet can be successful in Northern Ireland. I have campaigned for this for a considerable time.
But why only 200 acres? I know that the Southern Ireland Sugar Corporation was prepared to process production from 500 acres. I am told that the Treasury limited the acreage to 200. The Treasury usually takes an arbitrary and nontechnical line on these matters. The Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland advertised licences for sugar beet growing and volunteers came forward prepared to grow up to about 370 acres. But the arbitrary figure of 200 was stuck to.
Every volunteer had his acreage docked down and then docked down again, and finally 10 per cent. was taken off all round in order to bring the acreage down to 200. A close friend of mine wanted to grow 25 acres, which would have produced a really economic trial. But he can grow only 7½ acres—just over two-thirds of a field. The other third of the field has to be planted with something else. Other people are growing about two-thirds of an acre.
Will this be an economically practical trial? By experimenting for the benefit of the country, these farmers will lose money. It will be uneconomic to shift the sugar beet machinery around the country. I hope that the Minister will look into this and, if the trial is successful in the current year, consider allowing Northern Irish farmers who want to do so to experiment on a scale which will really produce results and will give them, if not a profit, at least not a loss on the operation.
We welcome this agreement. We welcome any agreement which tends to liberalise trade between Northern and Southern Ireland. But I do not think that the Northern Irish interests have always been the first to be thought of. We received something of a sop in getting 200 acres of sugar beet trials. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that


Northern Ireland is consulted, and will go on being consulted, during the operation of this Measure?

9.23 p.m.

Dr. J Dickson Mahon: I have served on the Scottish Grand Committee and have been at international student conferences and on legal subcommittees of different kinds, but never have I encountered a more difficult, complex and dialectical business as Clause 22. It is almost an Irish situation.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) said that he welcomed this Clause as a liberalising measure, although he qualified that statement by quoting two acts of illiberalism in practice. His mind was to a large extent influenced by the fact that sugar beet was being grown in quantity in Northern Ireland. I want to quote what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in Standing Committee on this. The hon. Gentleman said:
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West spoke about the sugar beet industry in Northern Ireland. I should not like the Committee to exaggerate the importance of this. There are only 200 acres at the moment. As there is no sugar beet factory in Northern Ireland, it is obviously very helpful of the Southern Irish to agree to accept all that comes from this 200 acre experiment. But it is an a very small scale. I was in Northern Ireland last weekend, and I understand from the experts there that they do not expect it will increase to a very great extent."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 5th February, 1963; c. 419.]
The argument about Northern Ireland is a bit of a blind. If 2,500 tons was a sop to Greenock and Liverpool, the 200 acres of sugar beet was a sop to Northern Ireland.
It is not that I begrudge the citizens of Northern Ireland, who suffer from tin-employment as badly as my fellow townsmen and fellow countrymen, anything which will help them to get more jobs, but when Governments make agreements, they ought sensibly to look at the consequences for those towns which are already suffering from high percentages of unemployment.
I start by saying that the argument that Clause 22 is designed primarily to help Northern Ireland is so much nonsense. That is a purely secondary consideration, perhaps welcome—and that I do not deny—but one which might have been tackled

in another way. There could have been direct subsidies to the Northern Irish sugar beet people themselves; there could have been the construction of a sugar beet refinery in Northern Ireland; and there could have been subsidies of the transportation costs of the beet to Greenock or Liverpool, there to be refined. Those are three simple suggestions from one who knows very little about this matter, but they are suggestions which could have been considered by the Government in their handling of the matter.
On Second Reading, I was very anxious about these provisions. An Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill does not immediately appeal to an hon. Member representing Greenock who has only three farms in his constituency. We have many troubles, but agriculture is not one of our main anxieties. However, I was most anxious when I found that a Bill which I did not read until the third day of its publication contained a Clause which affected the second principal industry in my town.
It was to my consternation that I learned that there was some kind of secret agreement. As hon. Members know, Clause 22 gives no idea of all the facts and figures involved in this matter, which have been drawn out in Committee and bandied across the Floor of the House tonight. This is a perfectly innocent-looking Clause, and yet behind it there lies an agreement which is extremely complex and which is very dangerous in principle.
I became anxious on Second Reading, and when I sought the advice of my friends in the trade unions and the employers' organisations in my community, I was not only anxious but genuinely worried. When I realised that as I was serving on the Scottish Committee I could not also be on the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill, I went to some of my hon. Friends to present these arguments. I then became frustrated by having to listen to the presentation of arguments from mouths other than my own, albeit far better than mine, for the best speeches are those which one has not delivered but which lie untended and unloved—except by ourselves—in our own lockers.
Perhaps my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) who have spoken up will accept my grateful thanks, on behalf of my constituents and those who have had the good sense to study the agreement, for their efforts on behalf of the argument. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyeli) for having been courageous enough to vote against the Clause.
I am sorry that, on Report, I did not procedurally get the opportunity to advance other arguments. I am now not only anxious and frustrated and bewildered, but downright annoyed. The Government's method of introducing this matter has been absolutely disgraceful. It has been slipped in in an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and does not form the subject of a separate Bill, which would have been more honest. Ministers have not made any attempt to help us. There is only one copy of the agreement in the Library—not two, but one—and it cannot be taken away. I could not even bring it into the Chamber. One copy is supposed to suffice the needs of hon. Members who wish to study the agreement and the trade unions and employers and others who want to know its ins and outs. There is more in the agreement than meets the eye, or it is incredibly silly.
I realise that in Committee it was denied that there was any question of a quid pro quo between sugar and butter, or that there was any connection between one item and another, but I do not believe it, and I will not believe it until I can completely comprehend how Her Majesty's Government entered into an arrangement which is so one-sided.
We heard from the Minister tonight—and he does not seem to see the point of this arguement—that in 1956 the Irish Sugar Company was not able to compete successfully with British sugar refineries. There was no argument on costs. The Irish based their production on the refining of beet sugar, while the British refineries based their on the refining of raw sugar, and if there is any challenge on this, costs are far better on our side.
What happened was this, and it has been referred to by other hon. Members. The "three card trick" was one expression used by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). Various other rather doubtful pseudonyms have been used to describe this manoeuvre, but, in fact, the Irish Sugar Company was able to increase its export of sugar to this country using raw foreign sugar because of a chink in Commonwealth preference. The Minister says that the poor Irish suffered terribly in January, 1962, when there was a change in the situation, and that the poor Irish must be helped.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith pointed out that it was not a case of the Irish suddenly encountering a disadvantage in fair trade, but that fair trade now prevailed, and that it was the British who had been suffering a disadvantage all along. I am talking in economic terms, not in terms of preferences and subsidies. The British sugar refiners lost a market to the Irish because the Irish used Commonwealth preferential arrangements. They were able to capture this market, which was one of almost 14,000 tons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), in a most insensitive and uncharacteristic speech, said that he could not be convinced of the wrongness of this agreement, because he could not have it demonstrated to him how this affected unemployment. With unemployment at 8 per cent. in Workington, he was unable to understand how this could possibly affect our areas, and he was not willing to reconsider his position on this until he was aware of how many men were involved.
The answer is simple. There are 3,000 people in Greenock looking for jobs, and they will not find them at the sugar refineries.

Mr. H. Clark: To suggest that 3,000 people in Greenock lost their jobs because of 13,000 tons of sugar—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member did not say that."] That figure of 13,000 tons is under 20 per cent. of Northern Ireland's sugar consumption, and I do not think that the loss of that quantity would create a high level of unemployment in Greenock. Poor Grenock, if that is the case.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman is galloping ahead. If he allows me to


develop my argument, perhaps he can interrupt again later.
I said that 3,000 people in Greenock are unemployed and that they cannot get jobs at the sugar refinery. This is the whole problem in areas of high unemployment. It is not just a case of existing industries remaining static in size and bringing new industry in. The problem is also one of how to expand well-based industries which local people understand and in which they are trained. The Government try to spend money in the development districts, but they by no means spend as much in them as they do on developing agriculture. We should be trying to expand the job potential. That is the phrase used by the economists. There are no jobs lying vacant in the refineries in Greenock and Merseyside.
Instead, there are men going home from the refineries with small wage packets, having been able to work little overtime, and in some cases having had to work short time. The loss of this 14,000 tons of sugar, unfairly taken from us by uncommercial and unfair practices, has meant that Greenock has lost about one week's work for all its dockers. When I tell hon. Members that there is a high incidence of unemployment in the dock area of Greenock they will appreciate how much the work represented in unloading this sugar would have been welcomed by the dockers there, who prefer to work rather than draw money from the National Dock Labour Board. The Minister spends money on subsidies in this respect, but he should realise that money has to be raised which the Dock Labour Board has to find to pay dockers who are unemployed because they are not given the opportunity of discharging this sugar.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West brought out the right point in speaking of this matter. This has an adverse effect on shipping in the port, and I am sure that it also affects Merseyside, although perhaps to a lesser extent. In our case, the loss in tonnage through the port amounts to 55 per cent. of the total. Greenock is not a very large port and, therefore, it feels the effect all the more.
These are the economic consequences. Some Ministers may say, "It is only one constituency; what does it matter?"

Mr. H. Clark: Northern Ireland is only too conscious of the problem of unemployment. No one there would wish to see one man more than necessary unemployed in Greenock. But Northern Ireland suffers from having to import a large amount of its raw materials by sea, which inevitably increases costs. When, occasionally, as in the case of buying sugar from Southern Ireland, we can deliver it direct from factory to factory or from factory to store, the economic margin can be considerable, and we want a free hand to do this if possible. The cost of raw materials makes it difficult to develop industry in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Mabon: I concede that point, and I agree that we should do everything we can to try to make relations between Northern and Southern Ireland as close as possible. I am not suggesting that this is an easy situation. But the Government have entered into an agreement that is more than a little unfair.
I want to take the argument a step further. I believe that the way in which the agreement was arrived at was wrong. The agreement lasts until 1967, but it is just possible that in the near future the Government may have to introduce another kind of agreement. I therefore tell the Government that I do not like the way they do these things. I strongly object to their inserting Clauses like this into Bills without consulting the industry concerned. During the passage of the 1956 Sugar Act, certain pledges were given to the industry. I am not speaking as a shareholder in any sugar company for I am not, nor am I speaking simply for the trade unions. I am speaking for the whole industry, which is an asset for Britain. The industry was given certain pledges which have been broken by the Government without the industry having been first consulted.
In 1956, it was clearly understood that foreign sugar refining would not come within the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I admit that Southern Ireland is in a special position. It is neither in the Commonwealth nor a foreign country. Too many of us have Irish antecedents ever to accept that even Southern Ireland is a foreign country. But that does not detract from the fact that, in theory, the understanding following from the 1956 Act was broken by the Government. The industry is extremely annoyed at having been


treated in such a cavalier fashion by the Government.
Secondly, if we are to argue the peculiar position of Southern Ireland, and say that the Southern Irish are not quite foreign and not quite part of the Commonwealth, certain other things follow. If we are to continue trade agreements with them it is unfair for us to have to accept all the disadvantages of associating with them without getting any of the advantages. If we are going to argue this case there must be a quid pro quo in relation to the Irish position.
When, between 1956 and 1961, no less than 14,000 tons of our trade was filched from us by an unfair commercial practice, did the Government make any attempt substantially to reduce this loss and try to restore the former position? It is not unfair for me to suggest that the British refineries should be given a fair chance of competition. It seems incredible that I, as a Labour Member, should be arguing a case like this and trying to convince Conservative Members, who are supposed to be dedicated to free enterprise.
All I ask is that there should be free competition between the British and the Irish refiners. But I am not getting that because the Government are standing in the way. They say 10,500 tons. What advantage is to be enjoyed from a form of agreement of 10,500 tons? I think it very unfair to say "Well, you now lose nearly 14,000 tons and we are restricting Eire to 10,500. The British industry has a concession, and that is enough." That seems to me rather a strange argument. It is like a person losing his wallet and finding only a third of the money in it when it is returned, and being told that he must be completely satisfied with that.
I interrupted the Minister earlier because figures have been published to the effect that what is happening under this agreement is that the consumer in this country—not the taxpayer, that is a big difference—is to have to pay £150,000 to subsidise imports into this country in competition with our own men, some of whom are workless. The only thing wrong with that is that the figure is not £150,000. It could be much more. Tonight, the Minister has confirmed another fact which was elicited by my hon. Friend. Of course, it is true that we would have to go to rock-bottom level before the British taxpayer had to pay

a quarter of a million pounds or £300,000. But it is possible for the figure to rise to £200,000 and I do not see why the British housewife should have to pay the subsidy. I do not understand it at all.
Sugar is an elementary food. It is one which is consumed by everyobdy irrespective of their position in the economic scale. Any taxes on foods are, in my opinion, bad taxes. Yet we are here perpetuating this for the benefit of rival sugar refiners. It is monstrous that we should do so in those circumstances and I hope that the Minister will tell us what kind of bargain we shall get from this arrangement. Is it true that Britain is to enjoy all the preferences which we ought to enjoy subject to the British-Irish Trade Agreements of 1938, 1948 and 1960? This is where the Government should be doing some bargaining. Let them get trade by bargaining sensibly instead of softly giving in.
What happens if Irelands decides—subject to the whims of General de Gaulle—to continue with her application to join the Common Market, and it is accepted? Is this agreement then null and void, or are we to be dragged into the Common Market with Ireland? After all, it has been suggested by General de Gaulle that Denmark should apply for membership and, on his say-so, may be admitted to the Six. If Ireland persisted in believing, not unreasonably, that she, too, should join the Six, what happens to this agreement when Ireland enters the Common Market? Is competition against British sugar to be even more severe? We ought to have an answer to that.
I think that the Minister is obliged to consider the way in which the industry has been treated and the way the interests of many people in this country have been ignored, and the rather hole-in-the-coner manner in which this agreement has become public. Considering all these things, the Minister ought to give us an assurance that this agreement will be reviewed regularly and that if at any time it appears that it is being abused, or if the subsidy from the British taxpayer should get higher, he should, as soon as possible, use his powers to prevent that.
I accept that there is the intention of trying to improve the lot of the Commonwealth sugar producer. Do not


for a single moment let anyone assume that I am ignoring his interests. This is a "phoney" argument, because the sugar presently consumed in Ireland and Britain could have been refined in this country under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The Irish Sugar Company would never have been able to use its foreign purchases of sugar to invade the British market but for the anomalous situation in 1956. The Government ought to have closed the loophole instead of allowing it for four years and then bringing in this change.
I resent Clause 22 very much. I cannot persuade myself, however, to oppose the whole Bill because of the Clause, but perhaps in another place good sense will prevail and the Government will be obliged to bring in a better Bill to deal with the whole subject. I hope that the Minister will look into the agreement and will watch its operation and will not again do this kind of thing to Parliament.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I have listened to both sides of this argument on sugar. The case was thrashed out in Committee and has been debated again tonight. There is no doubt that this kind of agreement is completely out of place in this kind of Bill. I do not want to get involved in the argument, because I have not studied the problem deeply enough to make any constructive comments, but I am convinced that such a Clause should not have been in this Bill. The House should have been presented with the facts and we should have been given time to study the arguments for and against and to look at the question properly.
Those of us who represent small farming areas welcome Clause 6 of the Bill, which deals with grants towards the construction of certain buildings used by farmers' machinery syndicates. We noted that Conservative newspapers had been saying that the small farmer had finished, but now, suddenly, those newspapers and television are telling us that the British farmer is the finest in the world. We know that to be universally true. Our farmers, in productivity per acre and the kind of crops that they grow, compare with farmers anywhere in the world. We have a vast problem in considering how to produce econo-

mically and to give the farmer and his wife a standard of living which will compare well with that in any other industry. This is one of the great difficulties in small farming areas in the hill districts.
On both sides of the House there is common agreement that, whether we like it or not, if we are to have a healthy agriculture we have not yet found any system of society in which it can be left entirely to the winds of fierce competition from overseas. Consequently, small farmers and others in the industry have had to have some protection. Over a number of years, on a balance of payments, the £400 million which farmers receive has been repaid in increased productivity for the British public.
I should like the Minister to look again at Clause 6. In the Bill we are told:
The appropriate Minister may make grants towards the cost of constructing, enlarging or adapting buildings for occupation and use by farmers' machinery syndicates for the following purposes"—
a number of purposes are given—
and of providing such buildings with such services, means of access and other works as are reasonably required to enable them to be so used.
In my district, I recently read in the Leek Post &amp; Times, on 15th February, of a person who wanted to set up a farm machinery repair shop. I saw in that newspaper that farm machinery repairs and hire are not an agricultural activity. I wondered whose view that was. Then I saw in a banner headline that this was the view of the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he dismissed an appeal in one of my hill villages, the little village called Bradnop, of a man who wanted to convert his shippon into an agricultural machinery shop, because he is known all over the hills as a repairer of machines. It was not the Minister of Agriculture who informed him, but the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who, through his inspector, turned down this man's appeal for the development of his shippon for the purposes of repairing farm machinery. It was reported:
Regarding use of the remainder of the building, the official notice of decision states: 'It appears that Mr. Rogers' activities consist in repairing and servicing agricultural machinery for farmers in the district and hiring out plant to farms. This, in the Minister's view, is not an agricultural activity, and,


therefore, the use of the building as a workshop and store of this kind constitute a material change of use from the previous use of the building as a cattleshed …'.
The Minister also noted that as this was on the fringe of the Peak district the Town and Country Planning Act provisions might come into force and there might have to be an appeal to the town and country planning authority because of the beauty of the Peak district. In other words, if we want to speed up activities in planning for some of our small farmers in the areas of the National Parks there must be a much more rapid way of getting electricity. I have heard of electricity being refused to farmers because the authorities will not have electricity pylons in the Pennine district.

Mr. Speaker: This is the Third Reading. If the hon. Gentleman would explain to me in which Clause the provision is made for dealing with electricity to farmers I should be obliged; if not, he must stop.

Mr. Davies: This Clause deals with farm improvement schemes which come under the miscellaneous provisions earlier in the Bill. But I shall not pursue that matter further, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says "earlier in the Bill". I should be grateful if he would explain in relation to what provision he is speaking?

Mr. Davies: There are miscellaneous provisions, but I will not pursue that any further, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to know whether in the case of the development of these machinery syndicates, the Minister can assure the House that he is able to get this done quickly without the interference of the Peak planning board and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Can he make this decision himself? It appears that in my own area there has been a limitation of the provision of machinery and agricultural repairs because the Minister of Housing and Local Government interfered with the possibility of a licence being provided for the development, privately in this case. Could such a thing happen with regard to buildings for syndicates under Clause 6? If so, will the Minister take powers to do this without the interference of other Ministries?

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I hope that the hon. Member who said in his second address to us today that there was not very much more to be said will forgive me for saying that I was slightly dismayed when he said that, because I have sat here since about 4 o'clock this afternoon. The fact is that there are some other things to be said. They are all, I hope, reasonably related to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) would no doubt at all times tender me the advice at my weight to keep away from sugar. If ever f felt inclined to take his advice, it is tonight, having listened to speeches about it all evening. From now on, if I cannot confine myself to saccharine I will try to do without sweetening altogether.
I do not want to enter into the argument on sugar agreements as between de Valera and de Gaulle, though I did think that at one time a very strong argument had been made for what I might call a douceur to de Gaulle, a rather more necessary one, perhaps, than one for Southern Ireland. However, leaving these problems of our international difficulties aside for the moment, I want to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark), who also spoke quite a lot about the sugar agreement. The point I have in mind is the possibility that, as a result of the operation of the Bill, there might be created more opportunities for, and indeed a greater likelihood of, the purely voluntary amalgamation of holdings and small farms. The hon. Gentleman said that it should not be done by compulsion. That is the policy which most of us also would prefer to pursue. I do not think that any genuinely voluntary amalgamations which may come about as a result of the operation of certain parts of this Measure would be resisted by anyone.
The hon. Gentleman said that the voluntary principle of amalgamation is what unites us all. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he meant also that, in seeking opportunities for new farms and farmers, he would rule out the old rule of merely selling to the highest bidder and achieving amalgamation and larger units by that means, instead of using the criterion of experience. The hon. Gentleman replied to my question


by saying that his concession to democracy would be to reduce the Stamp Duty on the transaction. That was, apparently, his most effective way of achieving the object which he had in mind and which he hopes the Bill in its operation will facilitate.
When discussing the scale of application of the various Clauses, it is rather important to bear in mind all the time that greater efficiency, better supervision and lower labour costs, to take only a few items of cost, are not necessarily achieved by merely enlarging the unit. Without saying much more on this point, it is worth while every hon. Member applying himself to the study by Sir Solly Zuckerman about two years ago on scale in farming. Sir Solly points at least to the conclusion that if scale is overdone, whether by voluntary amalgamation or otherwise or by purchase by the highest bidder, automatically problems of supervision, 'the necessity to increase supervision, and difficulties of getting suitable persons for that purpose, are introduced. Questions of remoteness of control are introduced, Also introduced is the question of an increased labour force and a whole host of other things which will not necessarily add to the efficiency of the larger unit or, indeed, produce greater profit for the person operating the larger unit as against the smaller unit.
I do not think that optimum size, whether for the purpose of the Bill or otherwise, has ever been adequately or finally defined, because it depends whether one is near the centre of things or out towards the margin of cultivation. In places like Hampshire, the richer parts of Northern Ireland and parts of the Lowlands of Scotland, the optimum size and all the rest of it falls into place fairly easily. Places like parts of Wales, parts of the north of England, Shetland and the Hebrides pose entirely different problems. Questions of soil chemistry and other factors come into the picture. The whole ecological history and background of the area is also a governing factor in deciding quality and therefore the value of one acreage as against others—and not the mere consideration of size.
Another point which has been discussed by many hon. Members—and because of the time element I will deal with it only in passing—is the question of the value of the various forms of assistance

under the Bill to different parts of the country. This is extremely relevant—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House.—[Mr. Broornan-White.]

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I had finished referring to the difference in quality of soil in relation to the question of the optimum size of farming units. Other tests must be applied also to the value of the subsidies and other forms of aid under the Bill as they affect different parts of the country. The infusion of capital—subsidies or any other form of subvention—to various parts of the country must be considered in terms of the ultimate and real value of that finance to the area. Assistance given to the Highlands and Islands and other marginal parts of Britain represents in real terms a different value compared with financial aid given to other parts of the country. It is important to consider these different values as between the outlying marginal areas like the Highlands and Islands and Shetland and other more favourably placed parts of the country.
Most people accept that there is a differential which operates against the outlying and marginal farmer and holder and we, therefore, should adopt a deliberate policy of differentiating the subsidies to see that the operation of Measures of this kind ensure that the greatest emphasis and help is given to those who need it most. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) will agree with me. I am equally sure that the Minister will see the justice of implementing the Bill in that way. I hope that, in practice, something will be done to slant the whole emphasis and weight of the beneficial Clauses of the Bill in favour of the persons labouring under the greatest geographical and other difficulties.
I am endeavouring to discard as many of my notes as possible because I do not wish to keep the Joint Under-Secretary of State up too late. The hon. Gentleman has sat through the debate and, while I understood originally that he intended to reply, I now understand that he has passed the buck, so to speak, to another Under-Secretary. I accept, however, that out of courtesy the Under-Secretary of State has come here tonight and I thank him for doing so.
We want to see the Bill doing its bit towards the creation of full-time careers and livelihoods in agriculture. It is important that that should be done as far as it can possibly be achieved. To the extent that the Bill may help to do so, it is welcomed and I am sure that all hon. Members will support it. The new hill farming financial provisions are greatly needed. A lot more needs to be done in providing shelter belts. A lot has been done in recent years under the existing umbrella, if I may call it such, but a great deal more still needs to be done whether under the Hill Farming Scheme or otherwise.
While an hon. Member has said that he would not wish to criticise the Forestry Commission, I would be prepared to criticise the Commission in one respect; it has not been particularly helpful in the smaller jobs; and has tended to leave the job to the hill farming scheme people and the Department of Agriculture, for the smaller plantations. I could give many examples of this if I wished to weary the House. It is almost impossible to bring in the Forestry Commission—perhaps I should say that it has been almost impossible until recently—unless one talks in terms of three or four hundred acres and upwards. Only then does the Commission seem interested. Meanwhile, for the ancillary work in agriculture—stock shelter and so on—the Commission has not been particularly interested. It is natural, therefore, that what has been done by others, those less well-equipped and less experienced, is not as much as we would have liked to have seen.
We are, of course, grateful for what has been, and is being, done in the provision of shelter belts; but I should like to see, if not a dramatic at any rate a very substantial increase in the planting of shelter belts. I do not speak from

the point of view of planting commercial timber, but from the point of view of ancillary agricultural shelter, from the point of view of amenity and, indeed, the tourist industry, and from the long-term point of view of its possible value in ecological restoration in certain areas that have suffered from erosion, and from the thoughtless and destructive activities of man.
I should like to see hill farming and, not least, shelter belt planning as far as possible made complementary to reclamation schemes and to the reseeding schemes that are now so fashionable and successful in the north-west Highlands, and particularly in the Island of Lewis and some of the other Outer Isles. As far as possible, the two types of scheme should be brought together, planned together, and thought of on a larger scale than has been the case hitherto.
One of my hon. Friends who represents a Welsh division mentioned the importance of marketing. It is true that lacking good market planning, in any one area, at any one time, one might, as it were, be producing in competition with oneself and beating oneself down in the market. There must be greater planning of marketing, and greater cooperation between the stock breeder and the buyer, which is one of the things that has been lacking during the years, with often disastrous results, especially in the outlying areas where the breeder is very much at the mercy of far too small groups of buyers, coming out just once in a while to places like some areas of the Outer Hebrides. I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West raises his eyebrows, but he does not suffer from that problem of marketing.
Especially in the outlying areas, marketing is of the utmost importance. I am glad to see that that is recognised, and that people are coming together in the Western Isles under various cooperative schemes and organisations to do something about it. I am delighted to see further provision in this Bill to aid marketing. I do not care where it comes from—I am not doctrinaire or partisan about it. As long as I see the sensible promotion of the idea, and the practice of marketing assisted, advocated and extended, I am all for it, and want to see it succeed.
In that connection, I want to emphasise the constituency point of the difficulties under which the store cattle people suffer in our Islands in the North-West. The North-West and the Western Islands are the great natural store areas. For many crofters there, it is the all-important part of the industry—for some, indeed, it is the whole of the industry. There is only one thing more pathetic than to see the miles-long lines of cattle and their crofter owners, returning from the spring sales in North Uist and South Uist because prices were too low, because there were too few buyers, because very often the crofters suspected that prices had been more or less by some mainland buyers fixed before the buyers came to the Islands at all—there is only one thing more pathetic than to see the owners having to take the cattle home again from the sales and feed them all during the summer, and that is to see them taking the cattle home from the autumn sales, knowing that they have to feed them on expensive imported food during the long winter—only to find themselves, perhaps, faced again with the same problem in the spring.
The store cattle people lose almost every time. That is not a reflection on the best buyers, or even on the average buyers, but it is a reflection on some of them, and it is something which should be dealt with in the interests of the store cattle breeders, who are a very big part of the population of my constituency and of the north-west Highlands.
Certain things can be done, and can be encouraged under the Bill, if not by direct Government agency, then by suitable impartial agents on the spot. For example, on the marketing side, much could be done to arrange a rotation of sales in the Islands so that the first sellers alone would not always cream off the best prices, with the last local sales suffering a drop in price, to say the least. In sales in the Islands in recent times there has been a drop of £8 to £10 or more at times on the sale of livestock between district sales. Much harm can be done by simple things like that.
Some good can be done again by the installation of weighbridges, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member

for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) when he talked about responsibility for providing pens and proper conditions to avoid and prevent cruelty. It would create a sense of fairness in handling goods at the Island ports. The provision of suitable weighbridges properly supervised in the Islands and on the mainland is extremely important and will give a feeling of fairness and security all round.

Mr. Stodart: One thing which has never happened in my experience has been the selling of store cattle over a weighbridge. As far as I know, they are never sold in that way in any circumstances.

Mr. MacMillan: I quite agree. I am not talking about store cattle at this point but of the general run of goods to and from the islands. We had departed some minutes ago from the province of store cattle, which is largely a problem of getting sufficient buyers and arranging the rotation of the sales. But I might in passing give the hon. Member an example. In Lochmaddy, in North Uist, these is a strong demand for a weighbridge. Nobody seems to want responsibility for it. I take it that it is the county council's responsibility. but nobody has got down to the problem and this leaves a sense of uncertainty or unfairness or even an odd suspicion that people are being unfairly treated in some way.
As to the grass renovation provisions in the Bill, I want to support something that was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland a few weeks before he became Secretary of State. I know that things are said with perhaps less responsible care before one enters office than one might allow oneself to say afterwards; but the Secretary of State said in the magazine Reclamation, of the Scottish Peat and Land Development Association, talking about a subject which became one of the important parts of the Bill:
The Government should set up land corporations comprising chemists, engineers, and aircraft experts who can plan and organise large-scale reclamation over areas of about 250,000 acres.
Not one such area, be it noted, but "areas"—units of 250,000 acres.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, and he had just missed being a


right hon. Gentleman by a few days when he said it:
Since 1941 considerable amounts of subsidy had been paid to hill farmers, but these had been largely based on the subsistence theory that farmers must be kept with their noses above water rather than on a determined policy to change the whole face of the hills. 'Unless a major Government decision of this sort'"—
that is, the reclamation of 250,000 acre units—
'is taken and the industry is given a green light for a period of not less than fifteen years, it is hard to believe that farmers will be willing or able to find the large amount of finance necessary'.
This Bill may do many things, but I doubt whether it will produce many reclamation units of 250,000 acres at a time, or give anything like a policy in that or other directions for 15 years.
I know that 15 years are mentioned earlier in the Bill and that a period of 20 years is also now mentioned. It was a relief to farmers, and especially to crofters, to see such a long-term mention as that. Until they saw recently the 15 years mentioned in the new provisions they thought that at any moment all their guarantees and interests might be discarded in favour of the proposed Common Market arrangements. They were relieved to think that even this Government were going to do planning on their own instead of having it done for them by President de Gaulle, Adenauer and the others, not to mention Professor Hallstein.
That, then, was the right hon. Gentleman's advocacy about the 250-acre units. No doubt, when he said it he did not know that he would shortly become Secretary of State. Without being too unfairly critical of him, I do not think that anyone else thought that he would, either. But, anyway, he wrote that article; and I think that he meant it. He is a sincere and a forthright man. In this case, at least, whether he was forth or not, he was certainly right. That was his policy, to regenerate and reclaim units of 250,000 acres. This is exactly what we have been asking for or hoping for under the Bill. Perhaps that is the wrong way round. We are not hoping for it or expecting it; but we are certainly asking for it.
There is another very interesting provision about grassland renovation. The provision here in the Bill is made for three-year periods. How often have I asked the Secretary of State to make the grants which are now being made for only two years over three year periods, instead, in order that the regeneration work can be consolidated. Anyone who knows anything about regeneration knows that it is necessary to have three full years, at least, to consolidate. It is not possible, even then, to say that the job is finished, of course, because after that there is still the continuous maintenance; and the people concerned have to carry the whole burden of the cost of maintenance themselves.
Now, in this Bill, we are talking in terms of periods of three years for renovation jobs. Why cannot the Under-Secretary of State, who turned my three-year plea down on behalf of the previous Secretary of State, get together with the present Secretary of State and agree that what applies here in the Bill to grassland renovation should apply to all these reseeding and regeneration schemes? When all is said and done, the people in the Western Isles themselves took the initiative in regeneration of pasture covering several thousands of island acres. The result is to be seen particularly in my constituency. It is spreading now to the mainland, and we are asking that these schemes should now be extended on a regional scale, just as the Secretary of State was arguing, shortly before he took responsibility to make sure that it could be done. Why cannot we have an official answer? Why cannot all the reseeding schemes without exception have a three-year grant just as the renovation schemes proposed under this Clause do?
What will be the result otherwise? There will be two years of communal effort, two years of subsidy, two years of assistance and local co-operation among the Department, the college of agriculture, local bankers, local merchants and everyone concerned; and then, if the local people cannot, from the third year onward, bear the whole cost for the future, we shall see all the thousands of reclaimed acres going back to the bog. This would be a disaster. One thing that we cannot afford in the Highlands and Western Islands is any other public memorial to failure in industry or agriculture. Therefore, we have some small


hope that there will be the greatest possible application of the doctrine which the Secretary of State in his article so strongly emphasised in support of what we have been advocating for a very long time.
In this way, we could do something to help employment in the Western Islands. Those who have watched the reseeding schemes develop will agree that in the last few years, regeneration and reseeding has led to a wonderful growth of new pastureland where there was only moorland before. There is a multiplication of the cattle population. It is a wonderful sight in Lewis to see the contrast of the brown of moorland on one side of the road and beautiful, new, green pasture on the other side of the road only a few yards away. But how much more dramatic, how much more wonderful, would it be if this were done over the 250,000-acre units which the Secretary of State so rightly depicted for us in his article.
Work on that scale, if the Bill can be conceived to apply in such a way, would mean that we could employ considerable teams of full-time trained people in agriculture for the first time in the Highlands. A man cannot live as a full-time crofter on a small croft. He must have a second job. The second job in the countryside is one of the most important problems in every country throughout the world. The really small operator cannot make a living out of a smallholding; or, at least, very few can. Whole families certainly cannot.
The average crofter is a man who is based on his croft, who takes what he can out of it in kind—there is very little money income from it—and who must have also a second job for which he travels by rural bus to and from the neighbouring town. Here, however, we have an opportunity, by regional reseeding, regeneration, reclamation and all the rest, for the first time to train full-time teams of men as expert agriculturists and to ensure their full-time insurable employment, continuously extending their operations of reclamation, maintenance and consolidation, in fully mechanised units, over wide areas.
I am not overdrawing the picture. The Secretary of State visualises this happening with 250,000 acres at a time. So do I; only I mean it. However, he is in a position to make sure that it is imple-

mented; that is the difference. If he retains his enthusiasm for the 250,000-acre unit, something still might be done. However, it might have to be left until after the next election, when whichever right hon. Friend of mine is responsible will do what the Secretary of State has shown no sign of doing since he came to office, keen as he was before then.
We cannot have a population of happy, contended and efficient crofters, smallholders, farm workers or, for that matter, small farmers unless they are in good homes with good public services laid on. In so far as these things can be achieved with the help of the Bill, it is, of course, the duty of the Secretary of State and other Ministers to try to ensure that they are achieved. I find it deplorable that after the crofters' magnificent efforts at rehousing themselves, to a large extent, in the Western Isles and other parts of the Highlands under the various crofter assistance schemes, they now have to find about £300 deposit before they can even start to build a house. Not many years ago, a crofter could get the materials and the plans from the Department of Agriculture and build the house himself for £300 from the foundations to the slates. Indeed, many hundreds of crofters did so. Thousands of houses in the Highlands and most of those in my constituency have been built in that way with State loans.
Now the crofter has to get a contractor to do the work. This takes the job more expensive. It might or might not be the right way to do it, but why stop him in mid-flow in this fine rehousing drive, to which he has contributed so much by his own skill and labour, by slapping on this means test provision of a £300 deposit which the average crofter cannot find and cannot obtain from the bank as long as he has to pay the high interest rate which has obtained under Government policy for the last three years? If the Government mean what they say about crofter rehousing, why should not they help this development instead of stopping it?
I cannot see the younger generation remaining much longer in some of the smaller islands or mainland townships unless radical measures are taken to rescue them from decay. I take it that it is Government policy to keep the population there is far as possible and to arrest the drift of population. This has


been the avowed policy of every Government that I have known for many years and even since well before the war. Yet, the drift goes on. This is not all explained in economic terms. It is not explained in climatic or weather terms, or by the difficulties of soil and the frugal harvest. It is largely explained in terms of the social background against which these people have to live and to bring up and educate their families.
It is time that the social services in these agricultural areas, particularly in the neglected areas of north-west Scotland and the Western Islands were brought into line with those to be found elsewhere. Agriculture obviously cannot prosper without proper roads and communications, without proper means of transport, without electricity and an adequate telephone system—indeed, without all the things which are regarded as wholly essential and which have been taken for granted for many decades everywhere else. All that the people in the Highlands know of their future regarding transport is that they are threatened with the stripping away of the railway services while being left with an

utterly inadequate road system—in places, with no roads at all.
That is not the way to encourage people to stay on the land, to stem the trend of depopulation or to cure unemployment. The Government have a five-year or ten-year programme right in their laps at this moment which might, at least, save them from losing a few seats at the next election to the Liberal Party if only they would put it into operation by getting on with a real programme for the basic services—roads, harbours, jetties, sewerage and drainage, electrification—all the things which are essential in so many crofting areas in the Isles, especially, and still denied to them.
How is it possible to practise modern agriculture without adequate water supplies, roads and electrification? It is all right to offer these various welcome forms of aid, but without the other things which are wholly essential and which are the foundation for everything else by way of economic development, there is little possibility of raising the standards in these areas to that enjoyed in other more fortunate places. If the Government neglect the basic services and the social background, they may as well forget the Bill and all that it stands for.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: I should like to add a word to what my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has said so well. On Second Reading, I made a plea for regeneration, reseeding and drainage, which is extremely important in my hon. Friend's part of the world, because I considered that it would be rather a waste of public money simply to concentrate on reseeding without giving a good base to the soil. I suggested that a period of three years was the absolute minimum if we were to get the best out of the soil.
This is a peculiar Bill which we have been dealing with today. It is a regular hotch-potch. It is called a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill and it provides for many things over a wide field, from £20,000 for fertilisers for mushrooms to £150,000 at the other end of the Bill for the Irish Sugar Corporation.
I well understand my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) being a little flippant about it. I will not repeat the story of the man who made a claim for cultivating grapes on Ben Nevis, but I recall an hon. Member opposite who, when he heard that so many subsidies were going, made a plea for winter keep for his bees. He said that if the mushroom growers were to have subsidised fertiliser, his claim for winter keep for his bees was equally strong.
The question of the mushrooms is an interesting one. I do not want to spend time on it except to repeat how extraordinary it is that when we asked for a similar sum under the Sea Fish Industry Bill to provide compensation for the shell fishermen, the Government said that it was prohibitive and simply could not be done. Immediately we get on to a little corner of agriculture, however, or even an attachment to it, the Government find it neither impossible nor even difficult to provide art equal amount.
Therefore, if my hon. Friends are a little suspicious, they have every reason to be so. While we are not criticising the subsidies that are paid to agriculture, my hon. Friends are tempted to say to hon. Members opposite that it is amazing to compare the freedom with which they give out subsidies to agriculture with the

awful, Scrooge-like attitude which they adopt when we discuss small subsidies for municipal housing tenants. My hon. Friends contrast the behaviour of hon. Members opposite because they realise that as we pass these extra subsidies tonight, entailing about £35 million, no means test will be applied to any of the recipients. For that reason, my hon. Friends express their doubts.
Before returning to the question of the sugar agreement, which was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), I should like to raise one or two other points. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, raised the question of the distribution and cost of the fowl pest vaccine, which is to be provided at subsidised prices by the Government. I raised this matter on a previous occasion for one good reason. It is only a short time ago that the Ministry's experts said that the development of this vaccine had not reached a stage at which they could say that it would prove adequate for its job. Until then—and I am talking about only a few short months ago—the Ministry was paying compensation because of the slaughtering of birds which contracted fowl pest disease.
Before the House approves this part of the Bill—because it is the taxpayers' money which again will subsidise this operation—we are entitled to know from the Minister if the Ministry now believes that this vaccine has been developed to such an extent that it will give a guarantee against the disease. Unless it does so, the money might as well be poured down the drain. We want to ensure that, having paid for the vaccine, which may not be effective, we will not be faced by some Supplementary Estimate to compensate for the slaughter of birds. It is reasonable that the House should have this assurance.
I now wish to return to the subject of the winter-keep scheme. This scheme is in substitution for the old M.A.P. grant. To Scotland this is extremely important because so many of our farms in the uplands are marginal in every sense of the word. It is in these areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles said, that we want not only to maintain the farms but to prevent further depopulation, in areas which have suffered very


badly from it in the past; and if we are going to err at all, let us err on the side of generosity rather than of meanness. The people who farm in these areas have tremendous difficulties with which to contend.
I want to raise specific points in connection with the operation of Clause 18. I mentioned this on a previous occasion to the Under-Secretary. Clause 18 imposes some further restriction on the operation of notices to quit agricultural holdings, and some of my farming friends have felt that under this Clause greater security will be given to tenant farmers. I want to know why the Clause does not apply to Scotland. Clause 26 states quite clearly that Clause 18 does not apply to Scotland. We therefore want an assurance that Scotland is already covered by provisions in certain other legislation.
I want to return to a problem which affects Wales perhaps more than any other part of the country. That is the dissolution of the Agricultural Land Commission and the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission. The case was put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. G. Roberts). It was also raised during the Committee stage of the Bill. What gives us concern is the position of tenants whose land is transferred to the Forestry Commission. We are concerned that their security of tenure will disappear when their land is transferred to the Commission.
The Minister said, "We will not rush in and drive the people out so that the Forestry Commission can take over." But that is not good enough. We should like the Minister to go a little further tonight. After all, we know that at present these tenant farmers have security of tenure, but they will lose it if their farms are transferred to the Forestry Commission. At least, that is what they fear. They are entitled to expect, before the Bill is given a Third Reading, an assurance from the Government that their security of tenure will be safeguarded. I am certain that I speak not only for my right hon. and hon. Friends but for every hon. Member in saying that.
Now I come to the sugar agreement. I have been surprised today by the absence of those who were loud in their detestation of the agreement and made

threats of what they would do when the Bill came before the House. They have not come today to support what they were saying a few weeks ago. But I too want to make a protest against the inclusion of the agreement in this Bill. It has no right to be so included.
This is not the first occasion on which this sort of thing has happened. The Government injected into the Sea Fisheries Act the prohibition of salmon fishing, even taking over control of international waters and prohibiting them to our own fishermen while giving rights to foreign fishermen. They put that provision in an Act with which it had no association. Now the Government have found it convenient to put the sugar agreement into this Bill.
I spent considerable time discussing this agreement in Committee and I shall not go into detail again. But for the record it should be said quite clearly that the effect of the voluntary agreement among the refiners was that the British sugar refiners had to pay up to £4 a ton more for their sugar than the Irish sugar refiners had to pay for theirs. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) had better get that in his head. When the British refiners were released from their undertaking the compensations, if any, went to the raw sugar producers and not to the refiners.
The refiners put their case succinctly and it was understood by the Minister. They said they would have no complaint if the Irish refiners had imported Commonwealth sugar and had obtained Commonwealth preference on it when it was re-exported. But that did not happen. The Irish imported Polish sugar and then obtained Commonwealth preference when it was re-exported. The hon. Member, coming from Ireland, will know that this was described there as a "three card trick."
As a consequence of this operation—and this has not been denied by the Minister—the Irish Corporation benefited to the extent of £2 10s. a ton. That is why the British refiners have argued that there can be no justification for giving a subsidy because Eire now buys Commonwealth sugar, for she should have bought Commonwealth sugar in any case in order to get the preference.

Mr. H. Clark: The hon. Gentleman have mistaken me. I did not defend the


importation of Polish sugar. I was merely maintaining the right of Northern Ireland to buy sugar, if she wants to, from south of the Border if it is more profitable, and not necessarily limit its imports to 10,000 tons.

Mr. Hoy: But the hon. Member must face the consequences. He says that the Irish should have the right to buy sugar from foreign countries in competition with the Commonwealth, and then re-export it under Commonwealth preference at an advantage of £2 10s. a ton. If he does not mean that, let him get up and say so.

Mr. H. Clark: I think that one of the most important provisions of the Agreement is that the Irish Corporation is bound from now on to buy sugar from the Commonwealth. I do not suggest that there is continuing agreement to buy Polish sugar.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Gentleman now says that they will buy a specific amount from the Commonwealth sugar producers, and this has been the argument used by the Government. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the British sugar refiners could well have taken all the sugar that the Commonwealth producers were able to give them, but as a consequence of this deal with the Irish Sugar Company this country was involved in the expenditure of a sum estimated at £150,000, and this would have had to be provided by the consumer in Britain. It is true that as a result of the movement in sugar prices the Government will not have to face this bill, but that is due to some fortuitous circumstance. If the price of sugar had moved the other way, the bill might have exceeded that sum for the consumers in this country, and the hon. Gentleman must face that fact.
We want to encourage Commonwealth sugar production and consumption, but there are some Members on this side of the House who have doubts about whether this is the right way to do it. If we are going to do it this way, let us face the bill which has to be met by the British consumer.

Mr. Loughlin: I want to deal with this point about how far we are prepared to assist Commonwealth sugar interests. Part of this agreement is for an experiment in the growing of beet sugar in Northern Ireland which will then compete with Commonwealth sugar.

Mr. H. Clark: Mr. H. Clark rose—

Mr. Hoy: I have given way often enough. I have sat in the House since half-past two, and I think that it would not be a bad idea if I got on with my speech.
It is part of the agreement between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland that this 200-acre experimental production of beet sugar will be carried out. I can understand the hon. Gentleman saying that this may eventually mean something to Northern Ireland. I think that he protested vehemently against the limitation of the size of this experiment. I do not think he used the terms used by the Secretary of State for Scotland when he was thinking about reclaiming 250,000 acres, but I think that the hon. Gentleman felt that 200 acres were insufficient.
Let us consider how this has worked out. Our trade to Northern Ireland has been affected adversely to the extent that the combined trade between Greenock and Liverpool has fallen by about 13,700 tons of refined sugar. Of that total, 55 per cent. of the loss has been borne by Greenock, and the remainder by Merseyside. The hon. Member for Antrim, North says that this is not a large amount, but Greenock now has an unemployment total of 1–0 per cent., and anything that worsens that position is very serious indeed.
That view is accepted by the Minister and, while in the terms of a full economy and full employment it may not mean a lot, it means something substantial when the unemployment rate is 10 per cent., and I am certain that this should evoke sympathy from Northern Ireland where the unemployment rate is as high as it is at the moment. I accept that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, and I hope that he will not interrupt.
Let us also remember what is taking place in these shipments, because this is important. It is not only a question of refining sugar, but of transporting it. It is interesting to note that just as our sugar imports have fallen by about 13,284 tons, so have the Irish imports to this country risen from nil to about 11,500 tons. One can see at a glance just what this has meant not only in sugar refining but in shipments of sugar. It is because of this that my hon. Friend's constituents in Greenock express concern, a concern


shared by the people on Merseyside, because both are areas of high unemployment.
I am sorry to have spent so much time on the sugar agreement, but it was the Government who put the agreement into the Bill. All I want to say in conclusion is that we have spent a considerable time on the Bill. I hope that in its main facets it will work out to the benefit of the industry, not only in the sense of dividends but for those who seek to earn their livings inside the industry. If it does that we shall feel that we have got some reward for the cash we are spending—because it is the taxpayers' cash that will pay the subsidy.
It is true that the main purpose of the Bill is to restrict price levels. If it did not do that it would fail in its purpose. If it makes it possible for the people in the uplands and in the marginal farms to maintain themselves and their families with a modicum of comfort, we shall have no objection to the Bill being given a Third Reading.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has underlined the fact that the Bill has been generally welcomed by the House. The interesting and quite long debate that we have had in the past few hours has covered all the important aspects. I shall try to answer the various points that have been made by hon. Members as best I can, going through the Bill Clause by Clause.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked about co-operative schemes under Clause 1. He wanted to know whether one farm could get together with another, and whether the Government enocuraged this. Indeed we do. We are making every effort to encourage hill farmers to co-operate in preparing joint schemes where this can be arranged and where the farms are contiguous.
The hon. Member also asked about the survey of hill areas. As he knows, our officials are now examining conditions in the whole of Great Britain for the purpose of reviewing the existing areas in order to see how they compare with each other. I do not think that it would be fair to put any pressure upon them in the matter of the publication of their findings. I can assure the hon. Member that

they are working as fast as they can, and we hope to have their views shortly. It is important that we should have this all-round look at the existing situation. I can assure the hon. Member that it will not be held up for any reason.
The hon. Member next asked about grants for amalgamations under Clause 3, and wondered whether the scheme went far enough. Other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), also raised this point. This is one point that the Government had in mind in introducing the scheme in the 1957 Act. The amalgamations are assisted only to the extent that the incidental costs can be grant-aided under these provisions. I accept that this is not an enormous help, but I can assure the House that these amalgamations are taking place and that, where further amalgamations are possible, they are encouraged by means of our advisory services throughout the country. The hon. Member for Gloucestersire, West (Mr. Loughlin) mentioned the question of mushrooms under Clause 4. We had a very long and exhaustive debate on this subject upstairs in Committee. I noticed that the hon. Member made the same speech on the Floor of the House as he made upstairs—

Mr. Loughlin: Not the same speech.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: —in some parts. I shall spare the House by not making the same speech in the House that I made upstairs in Committee.
There is an anomaly here and I ask the House to remember that mushroom growing is the second largest part of the indoor horticultural industry and that the growers produce £7 million worth a year. The hon. Member made great play about existing mushroom growers being on agricultural land. This is a technical definition. If they put their fertiliser or compost back on the land, be it half an acre or a quarter of an acre, the growers do at present qualify for subsidy. That would be an encouragement to the industry which, although the hon. Member treats it lightly, is a very important one.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: No, I cannot give way now. We have covered the points about mushrooms almost to exhaustion,


both as to eating them and dealing with them under this Clause. If the hon. Member is still worried about the matter, he should read the speeches which he and I made in Committee upstairs.
I turn to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) concerning fowl pest, which was referred to by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leith. I can do no more than repeat what my right hon. Friend said yesterday in reply to a Question about fowl pest. The response from the poultry industry up to the moment is disappointing. We have said all along that the vaccine is not guaranteed to be 100 per cent. effective, but it is the best we can expect. And it will only be really effective if there is 80 per cent. coverage throughout the country. In other words, unless poultry farmers vaccinate their flocks up to 80 per cent., the vaccine will not be 100 per cent. effective. If that is done we are confident that it will fulfil the purpose for which it is used. I must point out again how necessary it is for the industry to realise that the policy of slaughter and compensation will be coming to an end in the not-too-distant future. It behoves poultry farmers to get their flocks vaccinated for their own protection.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford suggested that perhaps methods of vaccination are not widely enough known. We are sending out as many leaflets and articles for the Press and as many instructions as we can. A further suggestion was about demonstrations. Our field staff has worked closely with the county fowl pest committees in giving lectures and demonstrations throughout the country. Next month the National Fowl Pest Campaign Committee, sponsored by the National Farmers' Unions, will be launching a special publicity drive under the slogan, "Don't hesitate, vaccinate". The Department is working very closely with that campaign. I must impress on the House that, in spite of all these publicity campaigns, and other gimmicks, it is the poultry keeper himself who has the future of his flock in his hands. The vaccine is good and efficient and it is not difficult to administer. I hope that the industry will take heed of what my

right hon. Friend has said and what I am saying this evening.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford also suggested that a Chair of Marketing Research should be set up. This is a very useful suggestion which we will examine. I will get in touch with him later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and several other hon. Members spoke about small farms, machinery syndicates and co-operation. As the hon. Member for Workington knows, nobody is more enthusiastic than myself in trying to promote and encourage co-operation among farmers, particularly small farmers. I will certainly look at the point my hon. Friend made. The formation of machinery syndicates can be of tremendous benefit to small farmers. This Clause will encourage them to get together and cut costs. Everything we can do is being done.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) and various other hon. Members opposite raised points on Clause 17. I do not think that I need go too deeply into this. It was very exhaustively examined in Committee. The Opposition accused my right hon. Friend of sticking to principle and dogma, but it is they who are doing it. Accepting that the policy of my right hon. Friend and of the Government is to dispose of lands held by the Government, the logic of the case is indisputable the time must come, and, indeed, has come, when there is not sufficient land left to warrant such high powered bodies as the Agricultural Land Commission and the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission being kept in being.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon asked various questions in relation to the dissolution. He asked who would continue to manage the land which was left. The answer is that the land services of the Ministry, staffed by extremely competent officers, will continue to administer this, as they do at the moment under the Land Commission.

Mr. G. Roberts: I entirely agree that the land services department is an excellent one. May I take it that it will operate from Aberystwyth as well as from London?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will continue to operate in the best interests of the land concerned. The hon. Gentleman asked about land coming to the State by way of death duties. I am sure he knows that the Glanllyn Estate is the only one which has ever come in. This was a special case. A special plea was made for it to come into the hands of the Department and of the Land Commission. This is not a normal practice. It is not likely to happen again.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about large-scale reclamation schemes. Neither of the two Commissions handles such schemes. When a report was put in by the Commission recommending that they should do this, it was turned down. The hon. Gentleman asked finally about the Mid-Wales report. This was mentioned in Committee. The value of this report is fully appreciated. Nobody denies this. If in the future some such report or inquiry is needed, my right hon. Friend is quite prepared to find people for an ad hoc committee. We have our Welsh Department, which is of great value. It is staffed by very competent technical people. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears that there will be a lack of knowledge in the future.
The hon. Member for Leith asked about the Forestry Commission land. I understand his anxiety. But it is not the policy of the Commission to use the powers it has under Section 24 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, as the normal means of securing resumption of land for planting. It is the policy of the Commission wherever possible to secure the resumption only by voluntary means. Compulsory evictions have been rare and I do not expect them to be more frequent in the future. However, in the rare cases where it is necessary to compel a satisfactory tenant to quit, arrangements have recently been made for the Forestry Commission, before giving notice, to obtain the consent of my right hon. Friend. I hope that this explanation will satisfy hon. Members who have raised this matter. I can understand their feelings about it.
The hon. Member for Leith also raised several points about Clause 18 and asked why it does not apply to

Scotland. The reason why it does not is because Section 74 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, states that any question of difference of any kind between the landlord or tenant of an agricultural holding shall be determined by arbitration. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) raised a constituency point. If he will let me have the details I will make inquiries of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and get in touch with him later.
The final Clause with which I wish to deal concerns the sugar agreement with Ireland, which seems to have caused so much difficulty upstairs and in the House. A number of points have been raised and, on the general one made by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) about the employment situation, I hope that he and all hon. Members realise that if the agreement had not been made the employment position in Greenock could have worsened. The same can be said of Liverpool.
When the agreement comes into force it could have a beneficial effect on the employment situation in these ports. Had there been no agreement the Republic of Ireland would have been perfectly entitled to export to Northern Ireland as much refined sugar as they could sell. They are entitled to export to this country as much sugar in manufactured goods as they can sell. By the agreement the Republic of Ireland is restricting, voluntarily, its sales of refined sugar to Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Member for Greenock does not appreciate that if there were no such agreement, the export of refined sugar from the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom could go on increasing. There was no reason why it should not. The agreement is helpful for these reasons, and the point about the employment position raised by the hon. Member has no relevance to the Clause.
Several hon. Members have referred to the trial going on in Northern Ireland on 200 acres of land. I should like hon. Members to recollect that this is only a trial. Whatever hon. Members may have quoted me as saying in Committee upstairs, it is only a trial. Only when one knows whether or not the trial will succeed will it be possible to go further. To do so without knowing the result


would be foolish. I do not accept that it is too small or that it was been subdivided into too small fragments. The whole essence of the trial is to have it on a small scale to see if it is successful. If it is, there seems no reason why we should not extend it.
However, the growing, planting and harvesting of beet is, to a certain extent, circumscribed by the character and amount of land in which beet can be grown favourably. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that by no means all of Northern Ireland would be suitable for this type of crop. Not all that much land is available for this purpose and, in any case, there has been a great deal of doubt about whether or not it could be done on a commercial scale. It should also be remembered that the Irish Sugar Company have agreed to accept whatever comes forward from the crop and to manufacture it.
The hon. Gentleman made a further point about the copies of the agreement upstairs. He says that there is only one. If hon. Members want more, we will arrange for them to be made available.

Dr. Mabon: In acknowledging this, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what consultations he had with the industry before this took place and whether in any future revision of this agreement or in any new agreement he intends to consult the industry? I am sure that it would be more convenient to have more copies of the draft agreement rather than leave it to hon. Members to ferret out the information from his Department.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was trying to be as co-operative as I could with the hon. Gentleman and trying to meet the point which he made. One of the things he asked was whether I could arrange for more copies of the agreement to be available. He made great play with the fact that there was only one. I am telling him that if he wants more copies to be available I will arrange for this to be done. As far as consultation is concerned, we do not in the normal way consult with the trade interests before agreements are made. We consult with

them after the agreements have been made. This is what happened in this case.
On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman concerning trade with the Republic of Ireland and how restricted it is, I would inform him that there is a sizeable trade in syrup with the Republic of Ireland at the moment. Of course, there is a duty on the syrup going into the Republic of Ireland, but, equally, this agreement puts a complete ban on imports of refined Southern Irish sugar into Great Britain. They can only export it to Northern Ireland and they are restricted to 10,500 tons. Therefore, it is hard to see how we could ask the Republic of Ireland to relax further its regulations and restrictions.
I turn now to the matter of the £150,000 of taxpayers' money. I wish to make it quite clear that this is not taxpayers' money but money coming from the surcharge which the Sugar Board is charging. When the new arrangements were made in 1962 the price of sugar was dropped by an amount equal to the increase in the surcharge so that the cost of sugar to the consumer would not be increased. In point of fact, this is where the effect on the Irish came from.
Finally, in regard to this Clause, I wish to impress upon the House that, although the agreement may seem rather complicated, it is giving a new outlet to Commonwealth sugar into the Republic of Ireland which, in its turn, is restricting its trade with us. I think, therefore, that the arrangements which we have made to compensate the Republic of Ireland—as we would be doing if market prices had not gone up—to the tune of £150,000 a year is greatly to the advantage not only of this country, but of the Commonwealth as well.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. I am certain that the Bill will be very valuable to the industry which hon. Members by their contributions to the debate have been trying to serve.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — PIG INDUSTRY AND MEAT INDUSTRY (LEVIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Pig Industry Development Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would be for the convenience, certainly of the Opposition, if we took with this Order the Pig Industry Development Authority (Functions) Order and the Meat Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order. I appreciate that the Pig Industry Development Authority levy is slightly different from the levy for the creation of a meat research centre, but as all hon. Members have had a very long day already it might be better to take all three Orders together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I am in the hands of the House. As it appears to be the wish of the House, I am quite agreeable to the three Orders being taken together.

11.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): The purpose of the Pig Industry Development Authority levy scheme is to increase the income of the Authority by raising its levy from 2d. to 4d. per score deadweight, with effect from 1st April, 1963. The levy is imposed on every pig which benefits from the Fat-stock Guarantee Scheme, and is shared between the seller and the buyer.
The House will recall that the Authority was created under Part III of the Agriculture Act, 1957, which gave effect to the recommendation of the Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Bacon that such an organisation be set up with functions directed towards improving the industry's efficiency. The present levy of 2d. per score deadweight was introduced in 1958. We expected, at that time, that the income provided by it would be sufficient for the first year or two of the Authority's existence, but that more money might be required as it extended its activities.
Since its creation, the Authority has taken over existing work on pig progeny

testing and recording, and the premium boar scheme. To these livestock improvement programmes, it has added a boar performance testing scheme, a scheme for feed recording, a register of provisionally accredited herds, and a whole host of other programmes for improving the pig industry. The Authority is also subsidising artificial insemination for pigs.
A most important field of expenditure has been the research and development programmes sponsored by the Authority. The important subjects covered by the programmes are of great interest and value to the industry, but the cost of these activities already exceeds the Authority's income and, because of this, the Authority has in recent months had to mark time on a number of extensions to its activities, which it proposes to embark on as soon as its higher income is assured.
It is no secret that the Authority's application for an increase in its levy had a mixed reception when it was first made known in the spring of last year. As a result, the Authority has engaged in a series of consultations with the industry's organisations which, I am glad to say, have now come to a successful and happy conclusion. They have also led to modifications in the Authority's plans; for example, the proposal to put up a model farm has been suspended, and so on. Other aspects of the Authority's activities came under criticism from some sections of the industry, but it has to be accepted that, in serving the industry as a whole, the Authority is bound at times to undertake activities which enjoy the support of some sections but not of others. It is very difficult to enjoy the support of the whole.
Although an increase in the income is essential to avoid exhaustion of the Authority's liquid reserves within the next few months, the Authority has found it possible to undertake to suspend collection of any levy for three months during its financial year beginning next October. It is not possible, within the terms of the 1957 Act, for the Authority to vary the amount of the levy it collects under the scheme, but the present Order introduces provision for it to declare "exemption periods" when, in the Authority's opinion, it is unnecessary or inexpedient to collect the levy.
There is undoubtedly considerable scope for increased efficiency in the pig industry in particular, for the production of better carcases at lower costs.


We have set up an Authority representative of all sections of the pig industry for the very purpose of increasing efficiency, and the industry itself should be in the best position to judge what is required to be done to further this objective. It would, in my submission, be most unreasonable to deprive the Authority of the resources it needs to discharge its responsibilities adequately, and I strongly commend the Order to the House.
Perhaps I may now deal very quickly and briefly with the Pig Industry Development Authority (Functions) Order and the Meat Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order. The first of those Orders will allow P.I.D.A. to pay, for the pig industry as a corporate whole, the charges which will be needed by the operation of the Meat Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, to which I shall turn in a moment. It has undertaken to pay, on behalf of the entire pig industry, the levy which will be at ld. per pig.
To explain the reasons for this, I turn, briefly, to the Meat Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order. This is made under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. This Act, as the House will recall, provides that charges may be imposed by Order on persons engaged in an industry if it is thought expedient for funds to be made available for various purposes, one of which, and not the least important, is scientific research.
The need for a substantial increase in meat research and for better facilities has been widely recognised for some time and has been strongly urged by everyone. The proposal is that the Agricultural Research Council, for which my noble Friend the Minister for Science is responsible, should set up a new meat research institute to which the work on meat now being done by the Council's Low Temperature Research Station at Cambridge and the Food Technology Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be transferred. The institute will take over existing work and also will undertake entirely new work extending far beyond that which is being done at present. It will concern itself particularly with new basic studies of the growth and properties of meat tissues and factors influencing quality.
The programme for the institute is now being worked out by the Agricultural Research Council, which has recently announced the appointment of Dr. M. Ingram, of the Low Temperature Research Station, as director of meat research. The Agricultural Research Council proposes to appoint an advisory committee which will include not only scientists, but also producers and processors of meat who will be able to advise on the problems of the meat industry on which research is necessary.
The capital cost of the institute is expected to be not less than £500,000, and the annual cost in the early years is estimated to be about £100,000. The Government are prepared to meet part of the cost of this important research, but it is felt that the industry itself should make some contribution, and the levy which the Order will impose is intended to cover about half the capital and recurrent costs. It will take effect from 1st April, 1963.
The rates proposed for the levy are 6d. per head on cattle, ld. per pig and ½d. per sheep. These are very small in relation to the market price of the animals, and this presents some difficulty in collection. To save on administrative costs, which would be enormous if one approached it in any other way, it is proposed to make use of the existing Fat-stock Guarantee Scheme machinery. This is the only way we can hope to do it at reasonable cost. We propose that the levy shall be collected by deduction from the guarantee payments.
It will be divided equally between the parties to the sale of fatstock which immediately precedes its certification under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, except that, where any fatstock is certified on the basis that it will be sold in the producer's own butchery business, the producer will have to meet the whole charge. I am happy to say that these proposals have, on the whole, been welcomed by everyone in the trade, and I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.
I said a few minutes ago that the P.I.D.A. would make itself responsible for paying the levy for all the pigs going into the Fatstock Marketing Scheme in a block amount. This is a function it has taken on voluntarily, and it is the reason


for the second Order, the Pig Industry Development Authority (Functions) Order.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: We welcome these proposals. I am glad that, in addition to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, we have with us this evening the Parliamentary Secretary for Science. I am often accused of being somewhat fanatical about research in agriculture. I feel that it is good to err on the side of research, and I am glad that the Minister for Science is associated with this project which, though fundamentally an agricultural matter, involves important scientific research.
I am glad that the Minister is able to announce that all sections of the industry now approve the levy for P.I.D.A. It is true that it had a mixed reception. I have with me the views of the National Pig Breeders' Association, published in its journal for January, 1963. I quote:
The N.P.B.A. agrees in principle a development authority is desirable for the pig industry and is pleased P.I.D.A. is currently seeking closer co-operation with the industry. But the Association does not accept arguments put forward by the Authority in support of its application and in particular has made the following comments thereon to the Minister …
I will not weary the House at this stage with those comments, but they deal with pig recording, field staff, demonstration farms, boar performance testing and advertising. Tonight, the Minister has said that P.I.D.A. will now postpone its demonstration farm and will also take action concerning advertising—that is, negative action. There has, therefore, been a form of compromise.
We are all anxious that P.I.D.A. should succeed. I have had the pleasure of meeting P.I.D.A. representatives and visiting their establishments to see some of their scientific work. One of the pamphlets which I received when visiting has the unusual title of "Ultrasonics and the Pig". That is very scientific and modern, as, no doubt, is the case. Some remarkable work is being done. The use of instruments on pigs which I was able to see was a revelation.
We are keen that this type of work should be encouraged. Pig breeding and pig production is an important and scientific industry. We are anxious that the industry should compete with the Danes or other pig-producing areas in Europe. It can do quite as well as can be expected if proper help is given. The research work, which P.I.D.A. will encourage, is all to the good of the industry. I make no complaint, therefore, about the levy, details of which are given in the Order. The Minister has stated the case and I hope that it will have approval.
We welcome the setting up of a new research institute for the meat industry. It was announced by the Minister for Science and by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as long ago as 20th March, 1962. We wish the new director well. The institute, I understand, is to be near the University of Bristol at Langford, Somerset. I am glad that it will be near a veterinary school and I hope that there will be co-operation. Again, I am rather prejudiced towards the "vets", having been associated with the Royal College.
I hope that Dr. Ingram will succeed. He did excellent work at Cambridge and we pay tribute to what he has done. As the Minister has said, the institute will cover research and deal with various problems from, I understand, mating to eating. It will cover studies on the structure and composition of meat, the mechanism of growth and development, genetic problems, the scientific definition of tenderness and flavour, a practical system of carcase measurement and assessment and general problems of processing and preserving meat. That is a wide field, in which research has been going on for some time, but it has not been enough.
I should like to know whether there will be co-ordination in research. Will other organisations be associated with this work? Will the research association for food manufacture at Leatherhead, for example, a research body which many hon. Members, on both sides, have visited, be associated with the work of the institute? Will there be an attempt to avoid overlapping and duplication? The food manufacturing industries have done considerable work at Leatherhead


on raw materials, manufacturing processes, the control of quality and storage. This will now be part of the job of the meat institute. Will the D.S.I.R. be called in and charged with the coordination of the work of the various organisations?
This matter concerns not only the research organisations, but the universities. We know that at Nottingham and Bangor Universities research has been carried on in different branches of agriculture, and I should like to know whether the work in the universities will be co-ordinated. There is, for example, the Farm Livestock Research Centre of the Animal Health Trust, at Chelmsford. Will this body be brought in? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will, I am sure, agree that we must avoid duplication, and if this new centre can act as a spearhead for research it will be responsible for co-ordinating the efforts of the other organisations that I have mentioned.
The Minister has mentioned financial aid. I think that the levy of 6d. per head for cattle, 1d. for pigs and ½d. for sheep is reasonable. The levy for United Kingdom fat pigs is to be paid direct by P.I.D.A. The levy, I understand, will begin on 1st April, 1963. Mention has been made of the cost of £500,000 and the running costs of £100,000, but obviously, this will now be out of date and the cost will be even greater. I think that the arrangements which have been made for the producers and the industry as a whole are reasonable.
The levy will be payable only on fat-stock certified for guarantee payment at a certification centre, and this is important. The buyer of fat cattle and sheep will pay his part of the levy to the producer at the time of sale, and the full amount of the levy will be deduced from the guarantee payment made to the producer. I approve of the arrangements for auction sales. The buyer will pay his half of the levy to the auctioneer, who will pass it on to the producer.
I was interested to read the comment in the Farmer and Stock-breeder of 29th January. This journal represents important farming opinion. This new institute and the levy will succeed only if the industry plays its full part. The journal said:

Despite all this, no meat producer can afford not to be in favour of this levy, for we still know next to nothing about meat and we simply must get to the bottom of it.
We know that our meat supplies this year are up by 5 per cent., and this is a major part of our agricultural industry. An important part of the industry is in imports, but no large-scale research has been done. Here is the first major attempt. We wish the venture well, as well as the scientists and administrators who will be connected with the Institute. We give our good wishes to P.I.D.A. in its efforts to improve research. I approve of the Orders.

11.28 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I should like, first, to ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary why he thinks the Pig Industry Development Authority (Functions) Order is necessary. If one looks at Part I of the Third Schedule to the Agriculture Act, 1957, which is referred to in the Order, one sees that the Authority is already entitled to carry out research into
problems of pig production, marketing and distribution and the production, processing, manufacture, marketing and distribution of pig products.
In fact, in the first annual report of the Pig Industrial Development Authority itself, up to 30th September last, one sees that it has been indulging in quite a lot of research in conjunction with other organisations, particularly, for instance, with University College of North Wales and Nottingham University. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to have a special Order to entitle it to cooperate with the work of the Meat Research Institute now.
Naturally, I welcome the fact that P.I.D.A. should be encouraged to continue its work, but it is obvious that it requires additional finance. The accounts for last year show that £99,308 was spent on livestock improvement and research projects, running at a deficit of about £53,399. I do not think that there is doubt of the need for more money.
In the last annual report there is the serious statement that:
This is the first year since our inception when the research programme has not increased in scale. This is not for lack of suitable projects with potential value to the industry. The reason is financial.
I have no doubt that it is financial. It has already had to delay the study of


embryonic deaths in piglets at Nottingham University and also the long-term research into lean content in closed herds at the University of North Wales.
These are two important matters in our competition with the Danes. It is essential if we are to compete with them that the research into lean content should go on. I am sure that it is in the interest of the industry that P.I.D.A. should be encouraged to carry on with it. Why, however, in the light of all this work, should it be necessary to have a special Order to enable it to cooperate with the new Meat Research Institute? I should have thought this was part of its job under the 1957 Act.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has, perhaps, been a little less than fair to the amount of work being done on pigs already. It is a fantastic amount. If he reads the latest report of the Agricultural Research Council, he will realise the enormous amount of work being done already. I must express my regret that the reports of the Council are now so curtailed that unless one dives into all the special reports from the various stations it is hard to find out what is being done. I have made an effort to find out and I know that a very considerable amount of work has been and is being done. The hon. Member for Workington might have paid a little credit to them for it.

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member will not be so touchy, because I in in no way cast reflection on the tremendous amount of work being done. I curtailed my speech, but I have with me details of a great deal of research activity by private organisations. Walls, for instance, does magnificent work. I hope that I did not give the wrong impression. I did not intend to do so.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up. We all want to pay tribute to the work.
I hope that the result of this new station opening means that we shall have rather more co-ordination and that it will be easier to find out what is happening. It is a major hunt in a haystack at the moment to find out what is being done at so many different places. I hope we shall find a better way of presenting this to the public, because the

Agricultural Research Council's annual report is becoming so condensed that it is hard to find out what is going on.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: All hon Members who have spoken so far have welcomed these Orders to increase the funds for research, and I am sorry to strike a discordant note. The setting up of the meat research institute has been done in a way which has created new precedents and will create considerable difficulties for some of the other research stations serving the industry. I think that I am right in saying that this is the first time any institute operating under the Research Council has been supported by a levy on an industry, certainly in the food industry. No doubt this is due to the policy of the Parliamentary Secretary for Science and his right hon. Friend, or possibly the intervention of the Treasury. I doubt whether the full implications of this have been considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), in welcoming the Orders, referred to the necessity for coordination. What I am anxious about is that by setting up this institute, with a statutory levy on meat-producing industries, we shall make it more difficult for the research associations which serve the food industry—and there are about half a dozen of them—to obtain the funds they need. Consider the British Food Manufacturing Industry Research Association. It gets about 50 per cent. of its funds from industry—in fact, it gets rather less—and £20,000 of this comes from the meat industry, which is the largest single contributor.
All the research associations for which the Minister for Science is responsible through the various research councils—and the Government through the D.S.I.R. —are having difficulty in increasing the funds they get from industry The Parliamentary Secretary for Science knows that there has been considerable correspondence between his right hon. Friend and myself on the question of the proportion which the Minister or the D.S.I.R. ought to pay. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, and whether it is right that industry should pay—and, on the whole, I think that it probably is right—the point is that if we impose a statutory levy on one institution, we


make it more difficult for other institutions to obtain the funds they require.
The British Food Manufacturing Industry Research Association has an income of about £300,000 a year, of which the D.S.I.R. contributes only about £120,000. If these research associations find it more difficult to obtain funds from industry because of this statutory levy, it will be very difficult for them to expand. It is generally easier for an established research institute under one of the Ministries, or under a Department, or directly responsible to one of the research councils, to obtain staff and equipment than it is for an industrial research association which depends year by year on the sort of voluntary support it gets from industry to do so. It is possible for research associations, if they get about an 80 per cent. vote in their industries, to obtain statutory authority for a levy but this is very difficult to obtain, and it will be even more difficult now.
The important thing here is that the research associations are, on the whole, probably closer in touch with industry than this research institute is likely to be. As I understand, this institute is likely to do the fundamental work, and the research associations will be expected to carry that work forward and introduce it to industry. They are in touch with industry, and it is very important that they should continue this work.
Obviously, a research institute is a desirable thing, but it is equally desirable to maintain the research associations in being, and there is considerable anxiety among many of these associations, particularly those which receive money from the meat industry, about the effect of the statutory levy on the funds they receive. I do not know the intentions of the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister for Science. It may be that it will be possible for some of the funds raised by the statutory levy to be given to the research associations which still have to obtain their money by voluntary contributions, or, alternatively, it may be that if the funds raised by the statutory levy are not handed to the research associations some work can be directed to them out of these funds. What is absolutely essential is that the Minister for Science should look at the serious position in which the research associations will be placed if the statutory levy makes it more difficult for them to

obtain voluntary funds for their own work.
It is not that there is any feeling of jealousy about this; the research associations recognise the need for the more fundamental work. But they are anxious to have an equal opportunity of obtaining some of the funds now to be raised by statutory levy. I believe, especially in view of what I think is the present relative meanness of the Government in supporting research associations—and certainly the rather tough attitude adopted by the Treasury—that it may be necessary to try to find ways of giving these research associations statutory powers. Perhaps there should be more statutory levies. I am not against obtaining money from industry if we can get it. It may need statutory powers. But to give statutory powers in support of one institute, whereas other bodies are entirely dependent on voluntary funds is—if I may use the term—like taking water out of one bath and putting it into another.
Both Ministers understand the point I am making, and the particularly important point of the transmission of research and its development into practical technological techniques, which must remain a function of the research associations, otherwise we shall have a very interesting and useful lot of work and then find that the bodies most closely in contact with industry dry up because they have not sufficient funds. I hope that the matter will be seriously considered.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I hope that some day we may so order the proceedings of this House that we can discuss the future of pigs earlier in the day, instead of embarrassing the rest of the House by making it stay up listening to things it does not want to hear and embarrassing those who are interested in the subject by making them feel that they are keeping other hon. Members from their beds. However, if we must indulge in this system I hope that we can spend a few minutes in discussing an industry which has an annual turnover of £200 million, and which is now receiving a large subsidy from the taxpayers.
I have been intensely proud of the contribution made by British agriculture since the war, and the improvements that it has made in its efficiency, but I have always been worried that in the matter


of pig production we have fallen far short of Danish standards. It is true that even now the Danes produce a similar pig, of similar weight, about 50s. cheaper than we do. That is something which the British pig industry must try to put right as quickly as possible.
The only way that I can see of doing this is by supporting the Pig Industry Development Authority and helping it financially to produce some of the answers to the problem. For example, on quality alone, P.I.D.A. can influence policy, through its pig recording and boar testing. That can greatly help. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has mentioned the question of research into diseases. He mentioned piglet losses due to anaemia and other causes, and the very big losses of the industry from pneumonia virus in fattening pigs. Housing is also a problem which needs further investigation.
All these matters can be remedied only by an authority such as P.I.D.A. I do not begrudge it the extra money, when we remember that over the last six years we have improved the position to such an extent that we are now fattening a pig of bacon weight with 1 cwt. less meal. It is clear that we are not taking a great deal of money from the pig producer if we can make that sort of improvement in six years. To my mind, it is a complete justification for saying that we must provide this money.
We know that we would not get it unless this was a compulsory scheme. We have just seen the Horticultural Marketing Council fail because there was no compulsion about the payment of money. I am, therefore, glad to have this scheme, and to know that we are making proper use of it, although some commercial producers still think that the P.I.D.A. scheme has nothing for them.
I have tried, briefly, to show the very great importance of P.I.D.A. to the whole industry. I hope that P.I.D.A. will improve its public relations so that it can put its case across properly. This extra levy should be well worth while to the whole industry. If, in five years' time, we can compete with the Danes on equal terms, I do not think that anyone who has been here until this hour of the night will be disappointed.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I thank the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) for the nice things he said about P.I.D.A. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) about the very good work that it is doing and I hope that the industry will support it.
The hon. Member for Workington asked about co-ordination and co-operation. I can assure him that my noble Friend the Minister for Science, who, of course, is responsible to Parliament both for the D.S.I.R. and the Agricultural Research Council, will ensure that there is adequate consultation and liaison among the various bodies concerned with meat research and make certain that there is no unnecessary or wasteful duplication. I accept that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and others are anxious, but I think that their anxiety is misplaced. I can assure the hon. Member that the points he mentioned will be looked into both by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Science.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) queried whether the second Order was necessary. The functions of P.I.D.A. include the right to promote investigation and research, but there is a doubt whether a regular and continuing financial contribution, such as that made to the meat research institute, can be said to be "promoting" such ends. There is also the point that the rôle of P.I.D.A. is directed to the pig industry and not for the purposes of meat research generally. The various illustrations which my hon. Friend gave were for donations for research into the pig industry as opposed to the meat industry as a whole. This Order is being made to remove any doubts about conferring additional funds to the organisation.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend should make clear that any money contributed to the meat research institute will be spent on that body and not spent on pigs.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It will be spent on fundamental research by the institute. It is almost impossible to say that this particular portion or that will be devoted to this particular project or that.


It is fundamental meat research which will be of enormous value to the pig industry by improving the functions and the type and kind of meat sold to the market. This is bound to be to the industry's advantage, and that is why the Order is being made.
I commend these three Orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Pig Industry Development Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

Pig Industry Development Authority (Functions) Order 1963 [copy laid before the House, 22nd January] approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Meat Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1963 [draft laid before the House, 22nd January] approved.—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS (UNMANNED LEVEL CROSSINGS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

11.50 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: The topic about which I want to speak tonight concerns the Minister of Transport and principally the village of Moorends, a mining village in my constituency, which has four unmanned railway level crossings leading out from it to outlying houses and farms in the vicinity. About two years ago an accident occurred on one of these crossings when a grocer's van, in which there were a young man and a young woman delivering groceries to an outlying farm, was struck by an express train and both occupants were killed. Immediately the rural district council—the local authority—asked the British Transport Commission to install warning signals and, if possible, automatic gates.
On 8th March, 1961, I asked the Minister of Transport a Question about these unmanned level crossings to find whether warning arrangements could be erected there. The Minister gave me what was in effect a very academic answer, including these words:

the evidence is that, generally speaking, there is little danger.
Three weeks ago another accident occurred, and the danger which was described as "little" by the Minister was proved to be rather more than that.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I have the text of the Question and the Answer here. My right hon. Friend, in giving that Answer, was dealing with what are called public level crossings which, as he said, are mainly on light railways. As regards private crossings, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, my right hon. Friend said something rather different.

Mr. Jeger: The Minister said:
…the British Transport Commission by agreement with the users has provided warning arrangements at some of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1961; Vol.636, c.45.]
I am referring rather more to the attitude of the Minister than to the actual work which has been done by the British Transport Commission, which I think is very slight indeed with regard to these railway crossings.
The accident two years ago was followed by a conference of all the interested local authorities—the county council, the Thorne Rural District Council, and the British Transport Commission. As a result, a lot of investigation and correspondence transpired. In May, 1962, the highways and bridges department of the West Riding County Council summarised the matter in a letter to the Thorne R.D.C. by saying that it thought that something might be done by the county council if it was generally considered advisable to do so. It asked the chief constable of the West Riding for his opinion. He said:
In view of the fact that the other three crossings are unmanned, I think that a system of warning lights would serve a useful purpose, particularly at certain points where the sight line along the permanent way is restricted at the approaches to the crossing.
On the other hand, the divisional road engineer said this:
…in no case do conditions appear to warrant the installation of signals. I understand that the Commission "—
that is, the British Transport Com-mission—
benefit would be exceptionally small and that by far the greater proportion of the expense would fall on the highway authority.


In other words, his was a strictly negative and monetary consideration.
The British Transport Commission said this:
…the Commission have given careful consideration to this question and whilst they are willing to co-operate in the installation of suitable warning devices it is regretted that they are unable to contribute to their cost.
The Commission went on to say that the estimated cost indicated at a site meeting held in November, 1961, would be in the neighbourhood of £5,000 for the four crossings concerned. The cost appears to have ranked high in the opinion of the people concerned with this question.
There was considerable feeling in the village, particularly when the next accident occurred only three weeks ago in which two brothers, aged 26 and 19, also in a van, were run down and killed on one of these crossings. The vicar of the village was so appalled at this accident that he went to the crossing and erected a six foot high cross and has threatened that, if no action is taken to install safety devices, he will organise a village sit-down on the railway lines. The same vicar wrote to me a year ago to say how appalled he was at the sheer indifference of the authorities to take action. He wrote:
It is sheer stupidity to say there is no need As long as people are likely to be killed, there is always need. With these new diesel trains you cannot hear anything until they are on top of you. I know. I had actually opened the gate at one of those crossings before hearing anything, and only the klaxon made me realise that a train was bearing down on me, less than fifty yards away.
The coroner at the inquest on the most recent accident said that some more definite form of warning system is required; a warning light providing greater protection and helping to stop the loss of life. The foreman of the jury recommended that a type of warning light should be placed at the crossing.
It may be said that people who use railway crossings have a personal responsibility for their own safety. To a certain extent that is true, but I am asking for an adequate warning system to be installed at all these crossings in view of the way in which people are obliged to use them. I urge the House to consider the process of going across one of these crossings. There are gates at each side and to get over the railway lines one must actually cross them five times. One

must open the near gate, cross the lines to open the far gate, cross the lines again for one's vehicle and drive the vehicle over. One must then stop the vehicle at the other side of the lines, go back over the lines to close what is now the far gate, back over the lines again to close the near gate. This shows that, if the gates are to be kept closed except when in use, a person with a vehicle wishing to cross must cross the lines five times.
Not only is the danger very great, but when driving a vehicle across it is even more dangerous, for the railway lines are on a raised embankment and to cross them one must engage low gear, "rev" the engine and in doing this it is more difficult to hear an approaching train. As the vicar pointed out, the new diesel trains are not only faster, but are more silent than the old steam trains. One no longer hears the chug-chug of the engine or sees a puff of smoke against the sky line. Thus, the partial warning of an oncoming train which one got in the past no longer exists.
On some crossings, particularly at times of fog and mist, the trains are upon the crossers before they realise they are there. That has happened to the extent of eight fatal accidents in recent years. I ask, therefore, that these crossings should be installed with flashing signal lights and bells which could be operated by remote control from a signal box. I also ask that there should be automatically locked gates, also operated from the nearest signal box and, where possible, under-passes or tunnels should be built so that pedestrians and light traffic can pass under the railway lines instead of having to go over them.
I appreciate that it would not be possible to do this in every case. That would, I suppose, not be financially possible. But it is vitally necessary in some of the more rural and semi-rural areas which have experienced the same sort of difficulties as have been experienced in my constituency.
There is actually one other crossing, in Knottingley, also in my constituency, on which up to now, fortunately, there have been no fatal accidents. Here the crossing is on a bridle path over a railway line leading to a housing estate on the other side. It is a common sight to see people from the housing estate crossing the railway line to get to the main road from which to take a bus to


work. Trains are stopped across the path and one sees men, women and children walking round a train to rejoin the path or actually crawling underneath or between the wagons to get to the main road.
This is a case where there could easily be an underpass, and although the Knottingley Council has raised the matter with the British Transport Corn-mission so far it has not got anywhere. There are no signals, no gates and a pedestrian subway would be the best solution. I searched the British Transport Commission's Report for 1961 to see what it had to say about these level crossings and I found in paragraph 158 only four lines about fully automatic half-barrier level crossings being installed. There are very few of them indeed, and the action which has already been taken by the Transport Commission and by the Ministry of Transport is inadequate to deal with this very important problem of life and death.
The negotiations which have been conducted so far by the local authorities show that there is what can only be described as a callous disregard for human life. I am quite sure that that is not the view taken personally by the Parliamentary Secretary and that he would be the first to say that this matter dovetails really into his general road safety plans. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman would be willing to join with me in extending sympathy to the families of those who have been killed so recently on this railway crossing. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether action can be taken by his Ministry to ensure that those who died did not die in vain.

12.3 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I certainly respond to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) that I should join with him in sending most sincerely, as I do, sympathy to the relatives of those who have, unfortunately, been killed during recent years on some of these crossings. What I have to say does not in the slightest degree detract from the feeling of sympathy which I am sure the whole House feels in matters of this kind.
I think that I can best help the hon. Gentleman by discussing, first, quite briefly the history of this type of crossing in this country. When the railways

were first constructed 100 years or more ago the railway companies were required by law to preserve whatever crossing facilities there were for private roads and rights of way. At the same time, they were obliged to provide access for farmers whose farms were severed by the building of the railway line.
It is most interesting to me because the problems which faced the railway companies in these respects so long ago are very similar to the sort of problems that my right hon. Friend's Ministry faces now when we are building motorways. Two types of private crossing have resulted. Those which are on private roads are known as occupation crossings and those between fields are known as accommodation crossings.
I expected that the hon. Member for Goole would probably ask in this debate for various types of safety devices to be fitted to these private level crossings throughout the country and, in particular, to those in his constituency to which he made reference. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman, however, that if the British Railways Board, which has the responsibility as the successor to the Transport Commission, wished to undertake that kind of thing it would involve it in very heavy sums of money indeed, because there are no less than 19,000 of this type of crossing all over the country.
If the figure which the hon. Gentleman quoted of about £1,000 or perhaps £1,200 per crossing was any guide, a simple calculation shows at once how very heavy would be the sums of money involved.

Mr. Jeger: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that not all would have the same degree of danger attached to them; and that a survey of the most important and dangerous would lead to a reduction of the 19,000 to a very much smaller figure.

Mr. Hay: I quite see that point, but we are talking, not in terms of several hundred thousands of pounds, but of a good few millions of pounds. That is the result of any such calculation.
Perhaps I can next say something about the legal obligations, because they form an important part of the background. The British Railways Board has a responsibility and an obligation of providing and maintaining crossings and gates. In addi-


tion to that, following a case in the courts in 1952, additional obligations were imposed. In that case, the court said that British Railways had to
…do all that may reasonably be required of them, in the shape of warnings, whistles, and so forth, so as to reduce the danger to people using…
crossings. Those were the words the court used, and that is the obligation that now rests on the Railways Board.
The courts have also ruled, and this is the other side of the picture, that road users who make use of these crossings are responsible, as the hon. Member has said, for their own safety when they cross. Incidentally, under railway byelaws, it is also an offence to leave the gates open, although that is often done, and it is the fact that the gates are left open that so frequently leads to an accident. A number of prosecutions take place every year under the byelaws, and perhaps I might just mention that the two young men who, unfortunately, were killed in the most recent accident on this Marsh Lane crossing had been prosecuted and fined in the past for having left gates open—so I understand.
I must make it quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has no power at all to order any protective measures to be introduced at these private crossings, nor has he power to pay for such measures to be instituted. In recent years, by agreement with users, British Railways have provided protective measures in various parts of the country, but so often it turns out to be a question of who shall pay. The local authorities, whom one might say are representative of users to a very great extent, quite frequently very fiercely resist any proposition that they should pay for these measures to be instituted.
Just to fill in the picture, I might just add that where a crossing is on a public road and not a private road, as so many of them at present are, there is an entirely different situation. If the railway line was laid down across a public road, the railways are today still under the obligation that they bore then of providing gates, and staff to operate the gates.
It is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that from time to time accidents do occur at these crossings. During the five years up to 1962, 311 accidents occurred at these private crossings, which works

out at an average of 62 per annum. In them, 69 people were killed, which works out at an average over the five years of 14 per year, and 149 people were seriously injured, and the average there is 30 a year. Of course, we all very sincerely regret that injuries and fatalities of this kind happen—one would wish that they did not happen at all—but I would beg the hon. Gentleman and the House to keep the matter in perspective.
The average number of people killed in a year on these crossings—say, 14—is less than the number of people who are killed on our roads in one day. I say this not to minimise the fact that people are killed. It is tragic that they are killed, but we must, I suggest, keep the matter in perspective. What we are asked to do is to spend very large sums of money for a comparatively small—I stress the word "comparatively"—result.
I come now to the crossing at Marsh Lane. This is one of three crossings over the railway near the village of Thorne. Originally, these were private roads; they are now maintained by the county and carry public traffic, but the crossings are still equipped as private crossings. The crossing at Marsh Lane is unattended. It has what are known as field type gates, and these open away from the railway line. There are wicket gates at each side for pedestrians. On each side of the crossing, notices are displayed which say, I understand, "Stop, Look and Listen"—very wise advice—and which explain how the crossing should be operated, that the gates should be opened and closed in a certain order, and so on. In addition, there are on the railway itself signs which require the drivers of trains to operate the whistle as they approach the crossing to give warning of approach.
The hon. Gentleman said that the view of the trains from the road from a vehicle approaching the crossing was restricted. My information is that in one direction at the Marsh Lane crossing there is visibility for at least 300 yards and in the other direction as much as as 550 yards. This is the information I have from our Railway Inspectorate, which advises me that this is a perfectly adequate distance in all the circumstances. However, perhaps we need not argue about that, because the accident record at this series of crossing is,


although regrettable, not absolutely disastrous.
Over the past 12 years, there have been at these three crossings, including Marsh Lane, eight accidents, and during that period five people have been killed. It is easy to build up a large number of people if there are several in a car at one time, and in two of the accidents to which the hon. Gentleman referred two people were travelling in the vehicle at the time. Had there been more people, presumably more would have been killed. So the accident rate does not carry us very far. I agree that, on the face of it, it is a disastrous situation. I agree that one wishes that it could be prevented, but, again, I ask the House to keep the matter in perspective.
I understand that the accident on 25th January occurred at about half-past eight in the evening. At the inquest, the jury, having brought in a verdict of accidental death, added a rider drawing attention to the need for better lighting. No doubt, this will be taken into account by the Railways Board in considering what could be done at these crossings.
Generally speaking, throughout the country the problem is not being left alone. Certain things are happening. Last month, a meeting took place between representatives of our Ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture, the British Railways Board and the National Farmers' Union directed to seeing what could be done to deal with the problem of the accommodation crossings which, the House will recall, are those which provide a crossing between two severed parts of a farm. I hope that that meeting, and others which may possibly be held, will lead to the closure of many of these accommodation crossings which are really no longer necessary.
This would undoubtedly help the situation considerably. Where closure cannot take place, I hope that it will prove possible, if agreement can be reached on the cost, for extra safety equipment to be provided. In any event, we shall do all we can to bring about a satisfactory solution of the problem and will use our good offices in trying to bring the parties together.
In addition, the House will be interested to know that experiments have been going on in the Eastern Region to provide a simple and inexpensive form of

light signals which would be actuated by the approach of the train itself. This device is under development now, and it looks quite promising. It may well be that it will provide a very satisfactory solution for those crossings which cannot be disposed of.
I must, however, add this. I do not consider that we can expect that there is some kind of broad frontal approach that can be made to the whole problem of these private crossings until such time as we know the new size and shape of the railways. The House is aware that the Railways Board has under review the results of the traffic studies which it has carried out in recent months and we expect to receive proposals from the Board concerning the future size and shape of the railway system. When those proposals come forward, they will be examined, but until at least that stage has been reached I do not think that we could look at the problem of the private crossings generally.
In the North Eastern Region, and particularly with regard to Marsh Lane, I have a little information that the hon. Member may be interested to have. The general manager of the region, I understand, is ready to discuss with the local authorities concerned the provision of extra protection at these crossings and also the possibility of better lighting, on the understanding that this will be at the cost of the local authorities. I am also told that the West Riding County Council has plans for constructing a road which would eliminate the need for the public to use the Marsh Lane crossing. I hope very much that this can be pressed forward, because it would dispose of this problem once and for all.
There, in brief, is all I can say about this difficult matter. I beg the hon. Member and the House to keep a sense of proportion. This is not a case where large numbers of people are being killed or mutilated every year because of these crossings. Generally, they are not dangerous if properly used. It is, however, inevitable that where a crossing is not guarded all the time, people will from time to time get hurt or even killed. However, I am confident that the Railways Board is fully seized of the problems and will do what it can to help.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.